§ 13. Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what radius is used as a criterion by officers of his Department when deciding whether work is available for fit young single persons in their locality.
§ Mr. PentlandAs a rough guide, adaptable to local circumstances, the equivalent of about an hour's travelling time in the Metropolitan area.
§ Mr. FortescueSince these men have, by definition, no dependants and since, to be entitled to supplementary benefit, they must have been out of work for at least a year, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that they should make themselves available for work anywhere in the country if they wish to draw benefit?
§ Mr. PentlandNo, Sir. I remember that in the debate which took place on 4th February I dealt with this matter in replying to the points that had been made, including those made by the hon. Gentleman. What he is advocating in the full sense of the term is direction of labour, and we are not prepared to accept that.
§ Mr. HefferWould my hon. Friend resist this attempt by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) to have direction of labour, which would not be acceptable to the people of Liverpool, some of whom the hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent?
§ Mr. PentlandYes, Sir. This is the second time that I have resisted it.
§ 14. Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in assessing the entitlement to supplementary allowances of fit young single persons living 22 at home with their parents, officers of his Department take into account the means of the parents.
§ Mr. PentlandNo, Sir.
§ Mr. FortescueDoes not that mean that the taxpayer is in some instances providing pocket money to idle young men who get all they need from their parents?
§ Mr. PentlandNo, Sir. Again, what the hon. Gentleman is advocating is a return to the household means test. That concept was abolished by the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, and it will most certainly not be resurrected by the present Government.
§ Mr. DunnWill my hon. Friend resist this attempt on the part of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) at another form of direction of labour? Is he aware that I recall the difficulties which were faced by people on Merseyside as a result of the concept which the hon. Gentleman wishes to resurrect? Will my hon. Friend, for the second time, tell the hon. Member for Garston categorically that we will have nothing to do with such a scheme?
§ Mr. PentlandI have already done that. It should be borne in mind that a young person of, say, 16 who is registered for employment has plainly entered the employment market. It would in many cases be unfair and harsh to require his parents to maintain him simply because he happens to be at home and unable to find a job.