Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-93)
DEPARTMENT FOR
WORK AND
PENSIONS, JOBCENTRE
PLUS & LEARNING
AND SKILLS
COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER
2007
Q80 Angela Browning: So it is going
to cost even more per head?
Sir Leigh Lewis: The interviews
will inevitably cost more although actually there are economies
of scale and they are not the most expensive part of the process.
We will evaluate that. I think it is fair to say that if you look
at those programmes, this is the programme which has been very
small scale and least successful of all of these programmes.
Q81 Angela Browning: This Report
came out in July and obviously it was some time in preparation,
but I wonder when you write about Workstep if you would be kind
enough to let the Chairman have a note on these 61 jobs that have
been created and tell us what the rate of attrition has been since
these people went into jobs?
Sir Leigh Lewis: If we can do
that, we most certainly will. [8]
Q82 Angela Browning: I would be grateful.
May I finally, Chairman, draw Sir Leigh's attention—it would
be remiss of me not to do so because I have had several meetings
with ministers in the last few years about getting people with
autistic spectrum disorders into work—that for the £76,000
you could adopt the Prospect scheme used by the National Autistic
Society to get autistic people into work which has a 70% success
rate and you could have got six people into work for every one
that you have got in that column. The reason the Department have
rejected adopting the Prospect scheme is they claim it is too
high a cost at £12,000 a head. Could I leave you with that
because it is pertinent to the amount you are spending at £76,000
per head.
Sir Leigh Lewis: Thank you and
I will take that away.
Q83 Mr Bacon: I have got just one
question, although Mrs Browning has prompted another. Are you
happy to place on the record that whatever you got your knighthood
for it was not for New Deal for Partners?
Sir Leigh Lewis: I can confirm
that.
Q84 Mr Bacon: Just so we are clear.
Ms Strathie: Chairman, could I
just make a general point that these are a narrow view of the
cost to the Exchequer and they are about additional jobs. There
is not a measure in there about people who perhaps got better
jobs or more sustainable jobs because of the programme. That is
one point.
Q85 Mr Bacon: Nonetheless, you could
fit them on one bus, could you not?
Ms Strathie: The second point
I would like to make is New Deal for Partners is anomalous because
we do not have many benefit savings. These are couples on benefits
and if we help someone into work, even if there were no costs
in running the programme, it would still be expensive because
there is no saving in benefit.
Q86 Mr Bacon: That is a magnificent
sentence, if I may say so, even if there were no costs it would
still be expensive.
Ms Strathie: It is about trying
to help people to equip themselves to move into work and the broader
benefits.
Q87 Mr Bacon: Could you send us a
note.[9]
I just want to ask Sir Leigh a different question. Just confirm
first of all how many economically inactive people are there;
it is 4.2 million, is it?
Sir Leigh Lewis: I think there
are 7.97 million economically inactive people.
Q88 Mr Bacon: Nearly eight million people.
Sir Leigh Lewis: Let me, just
as we speak, check that for you but I think that is where we are.
Q89 Mr Bacon: This may be a question
for the National Audit Office I am not sure, in paragraph 5.11,
if it is roughly eight million then 20% is going to be 1.6 million.
It says in paragraph 5.11 that in order to meet the Government's
aspiration of an 80% employment rate around one-fifth of the economically
inactive population will need to move into work including 0.3
million lone parents, one million older workers and one million
incapacity benefits claimants, a total of 2.3 million. 2.3 million
out of 4.2 is a lot more than a fifth. 2.3 million out of eight
million is still a bit more than a fifth. Can the NAO just clarify
what is that 2.3 million, if that is a fifth, then presumably
100% of it would be ten or 11 million, would it not?
Ms Brown: It refers to one million
older workers. They are not necessarily economically inactive.
Q90 Mr Bacon: It is just that it
says: "one-fifth of the economically inactive population
will need to move into work, including ... " and then it
lists the people who fall into that category, but that is just
not correct?
Ms Brown: The grammar is not correct.
Sir Leigh Lewis: I can confirm
though that there are 7.97 million economically inactive.
Q91 Mr Bacon: How many of those 7.97
million would you need to get into work in order to meet your
aspiration of an 80% work rate in the workforce?
Sir Leigh Lewis: We set out in
an earlier Green Paper that we have an aspiration to help one
million extra people from incapacity benefit and so on. The breakdown
of that 7.97 million is about two and a quarter million who are
sick and disabled, another two and a quarter million looking after
family or looking after their home, something under two million
students, and about one and a half million others, and that will
include people who have retired in effect before statutory pension
age.
Q92 Mr Bacon: Yes but how many of
that group of the 7.97 million would you need to get into work
in order to reach the Government's aspiration of an 80% employment
rate?
Sir Leigh Lewis: Rather than try
and do the mathematics absolutely in my head, would you let me
write to you? 10
Mr Bacon: Absolutely, thank you very
much.
Q93 Chairman: You are right, it is
very complex and that concludes our hearing. I will leave you
with this thought which is contained in paragraph 5.12 which says:
"The complexity of assessing the relative costs and benefits
of helping different segments of the workless population has been
highlighted in the Freud review which recommended that the Department
for Work and Pension develop a model that will allow us to understand
the full costs and benefits of moving different groups of individuals
into work." I presume that you would agree with that paragraph
and you have done this?
Sir Leigh Lewis: We have done
a huge amount of work and we will continue to work on it, Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much for what
has been a very interesting hearing. Thank you for your comment
also that spending £76,000 per job on New Deal for Partners
was: "not a spectacular success". I think that must
go down in the lexicon of Civil Service understatements. Thank
you.
10 Note by witness: The employment rate
for the period July to September 2007 was 74.4%. To raise this
to the Government's aspiration of 80% of the working age population,
just over 2 million more people would need to be in employment,
based on the current working age population level.
8 Note by witness: Due to the low numbers participating
in the New Deal for Partners, information is not available on
the sustainability of jobs obtained through the programme. Back
9
Ev 17-18 Back
| 
