Skip to main content

Jobseekers (Project Work Scheme)

Volume 270: debated on Monday 29 January 1996

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 16 January, Official Report, column 610, if she will place in the Library a copy of all correspondence and other data evaluated by her Department relating to the decision to pilot the project work scheme in the Hull and Medway travel-to-work areas. [12156]

[holding answer 26 January 1996]: The information requested is either data about the labour market, which is publicly available, or pre-existing documents. It would not be appropriate specifically to provide this information in the form requested. However, it may be helpful if I explain the way in which the choice of pilot areas was made. Hull and Medway and Maidstone were two of a number of travel-to-work areas of the right size to mount a manageable pilot at a reasonable cost, while still producing a sample large enough for proper evaluation. They were also relatively self-contained, which minimised the potential for distortion, and they represented two different sorts of labour market. The respective rates of unemployment and very long-term unemployment in the two travel-to-work areas is shown in the following table, compared with the national averages.

Pilot areaUnemployment rate Per cent.VLTU1 as percentage of total unemployedVLTU2 as percentage of total workforce
Medway and Maidstone8.213.71.1
Hull9.918.81.9
National average8.021.61.7
1Very long-term unemployed, i.e., over 2 years.
2Seasonally adjusted, and provisional.