HC Deb 30 March 1971 vol 814 cc1454-68

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I am grateful for the opportunity so relatively early in the evening of raising a matter which is of considerable importance to my constituency. I hope that we shall be able to clear up the difficulties and confusion that have arisen about the payment of unemployment benefit to young people who are out of work and are also attending part-time courses at the Marine and Technical College in my constituency. The same problem arises elsewhere in the country. This is no new problem but the present heavy unemployment in South Shields is highlighting it.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment in January about this matter and the papers were passed to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The matter affects both Departments and possibly also the Department of Education and Science. I do not mind which of the three Departments provides a satisfactory solution.

South Shields is suffering particularly heavy unemployment which affects also Tyneside and Wearside. Although a large proportion of the unemployed are older people, unhappily, a considerable number of young people are also out of work. In my constituency 10 per cent. of the men are unemployed. There are about 140 boys on the register and some hundreds of adolescents up to the age of 20, the great majority of whom are not skilled. We should be doing everything we can to encourage them to improve their educational background, but the absurd position is that if these young lads sit on their bottoms at home and make no effort to get extra training, they will be entitled to unemployment benefit and, sometimes, to supplementary benefit. Yet those who show a keeness and desire to take a course at the Marine and Technical College to improve their general educational standards towards G.C.E. or on a part-time training basis receive unemployment benefit only after an interminable struggle. It is intolerable that this should happen.

Many facts have been elicited by the South Shields Trades Council, which has taken a particular interest in this subject, and they bring to light an extraordinary situation. For example, when a young lad who is taking a part-time day release course becomes redundant and goes to the employment exchange, he is likely to be told that if he loses his job he will also have to give up the course. Why should he have to do so? Some of these young workers should be entitled to receive unemployment benefit provided that the courses are part-time; they could still sign the register as being available for work, as indeed they are.

After a good deal of discussion and argument, we have managed to enable some of these young people to receive benefit, but in other cases our arguments have not been accepted. Some young people have not a full contribution record because their period in work has been too short and have to apply for supplementary allowance. I have with me a form issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in which supplementary allowance is disallowed for one man on the grounds that he is alleged to be undergoing, which is a curious word to use, full-time education. I do not understand why they regard that course as full-time since the Ministry of Education and Science consider it to be a part-time course and so classify it.

There are endless disputes of this kind in my constituency about individual cases. However, in spite of these difficulties, the man in question is carrying on with the course and is being helped by his family, which is not particularly well off. We hear many stories about people who try to get benefit when they are not entitled to it. I wish that more attention were paid to enabling those keen enough to want to continue courses to do so and to improve their situation in life. It appears that the powers-that-be are against them and are trying to prevent them continuing courses of study. If this is the attitude, it is wrong. If a young man becomes unemployed when in midcourse, why should we not encourage him to continue? Should we not make it quite clear that they are entitled to their unemployment benefit or to the supplementary allowance?

While we have had very satisfactory discussions with the manager of the local employment exchange who has been extremely helpful in trying to work out those courses which could be accepted as clearly part-time, when cases are referred to the Department of Health and Social Security matters are not so easy. There appears to be no common line of agreement about them between the two Departments. Furthermore, there is no common line between one employment exchange and another. Young people living in nearby areas who seek to attend courses at the South Shields Marine Technical College find that their local employment exchanges disallow benefit which is allowed by the South Shields exchange. That is even true of exchanges as near as Jarrow. Applications for benefit have been rejected in Jarrow when, if they had come to us in Shields, they would have been allowed under the arrangements which have now been reached. Clearly there is complete confusion between the two Ministries and, to put it mildly, the situation is most unsatisfactory.

We are determined to see that the matter is put right. I would not mind if it were said that unemployment benefit is not the right term to use and that a special grant should be provided to people who want to do this work. However, I do not see why they should be put to this kind of trouble just because they want to do some extra training, realising that there are deficiencies to make up and that they want a better chance. Surely we should encourage them.

I appeal to the Minister to say that he will try to clear up the confusion. I know of cases of people who have had to give up courses and sit at home, which is just foolish. I know of other cases of people who are carrying on with a good deal of hardship to their families. In one case, the father is out of work, but the family is trying to help the son carry on.

We must try to make it clear that these facilities are available. Most counter staffs in employment exchanges do not appear to know and are not able to offer much in the way of advice. Their general reaction is simply to tell people that if they are taking a course at the Marine Technical College they are automatically excluded from unemployment benefit. We know that that is not necessarily the position, but that is the impression.

I hope to hear from the Minister that there will be a real attempt to publicise the facilities that are available. In addition, I hope that steps will be taken to sort out individual cases. The Committee of Inquiry into Abuses of the Social Services is currently looking into the misuse of funds. In my opinion, its terms of reference should be extended to the investigation of cases where people do not get that to which they are entitled.

The Minister has a special responsibility under the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. Section 9(2) sets out his responsibility to define these courses and says: The Minister may by regulations specify the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as attending a school or receiving full-time instruction of a kind given in schools". I invite him to use the powers given to him in that Section to make clear what are the courses available to young people which would still permit them to be entitled to receive unemployment benefit, accepting that their availability for work and their contribution record are also factors to be taken into account.

Many of us would be willing to help the Minister draw up a list of that kind. We have already done so locally in South Shields where it has been found possible to agree a list with local officers of the Department of Employment who understand and accept the position. We find it much more difficult to get the same acceptance from the hon. Gentleman's own local officers, although in my experience those officers in other matters have been as friendly and as helpful as officers in the Department of Employment.

I should be delighted if the Minister were able to say at once that he was prepared to give the necessary instructions to clear up all these difficulties, settling the matter on the spot. That would be the best of all. However, I should accept with rather less satisfaction his statement that the case had been made out, that clarification was needed, that the position should be made clear to young people. I hope that he will be able to make at least that statement and within a short time issue the necessary instructions to local branches of his Department so that people will not be put into the difficulties which now appear to exist.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on raising this matter which is an important issue in the North-East. Press comment and people with whom I have discussed the matter incline to the view that if the regulations prevent these youngsters from attending college and receiving the benefits of further education, the regulations should be altered.

When I qualified as a teacher, in 1937, my first job was on Tyneside at what was then known as a dole school where youngsters had to attend in order to qualify for the miserable benefit available in those days.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that anything which deters a youngster who is out of work not only from attending college or receiving instruction and improving his qualifications, but from being in touch with an institution which can help him to get over a very difficult and tragic period in his life when he cannot get work, should be looked at very closely and that, if possible, the reverse should be the situation: we should encourage him.

Youth employment in the Northern Region is a great problem. I should like to add my tribute to the officers in both Departments. They understand the problem and they are anxious to give every co-operation. It is stupid, when youngsters are prepared to give the time and their parents to give them encouragement to receive extra instruction, that we should deter them in any way.

In the Northern Region two matters are peculiar to young people. The first—I do not boast about it—is that we have the poorest record of any region for children staying on at school. There are many reasons. More of our children leave at the statutory age than in any other region not because they are less intelligent—far from it. As an ex-schoolmaster I can say that it is not because parents do not value education and training. They do. Indeed, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many parents make great sacrifices to give their children the opportunities which they think they should have. But, as well as so many early leavers, the North has more youngsters going into apprenticeships than anywhere else in the country. I suppose this is because of the tradition of heavy industry, and so on.

Secondly, many youngsters leave early because they become convinced that school is no longer relevant to the kind of employment they want to take or to their adult life. One of the reasons for the growth of what we call technical colleges and colleges of further education is that youngsters who left school and tended to write themselves off far too early in life then see the value of courses at institutions of further education, at marine and technical colleges, and the like.

I ask the Minister to search for some way to ensure that these youngsters who are being encouraged to undertake this further training are not deterred by anything which we do as a Government, as a nation, or locally. Indeed, we should regard it is as our duty to encourage them. I vigorously support my hon. Friend's plea.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has raised a very important issue. I have had a brief chat with the Under-Secretary; over the past many months when we have worked together in Standing Committee, I have been conscious of his personal attitude to these problems. It is encouraging to know that he wishes to help young people who are affected in this way.

I want to mention a matter of some concern. Very often, in a Motion or a Bill, the House indicates its intention, but we are later alarmed at the way in which it is put into effect. We should ask how our intentions towards these young people who are denied benefits can be administered. I am amazed how often our intentions do not fructify as the ordinary citizen would expect. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take heed of what my hon. Friend said. How can we translate our intentions administratively? There are many occasions for politics, but we in this House are primarily concerned with human beings.

We have the finest civil servants in the world—although they are often criticised—but they are part of a complex administrative system, and the translation of our intentions often militates against success. Some young people must be alarmed about their treatment. I hope that some of them will agree that those of us who are older than they are very much concerned about their job opportunities and training. We should be interested in how the State can help them.

I would not be in conflict with the Under-Secretary, because I know how he feels. The dilemma is administrative, not political—it relates to the ability to test individual cases against general needs. Many constituents have said that they are trying to pursue a course of study but they need help from social security and for some reason do not qualify. When I have telephoned the officials they have been sympathetic but have said that they were bound by precedent.

How can the Government break through this administrative barrier? The politicians have to tell the administrators to carry our intentions through. I make no criticism of the fact that there are no hon. Members opposite, because we have had a hard day. We are talking here of young people embarking on courses of study who need to go to the State for help. Can we not deal with individual cases without calling on precedents?

Social security officers are frequently criticised, and unreasonably so. They are an example to us all for their patient dealing with the public. There are one or two individuals in the service who ought not to be there because they talk to people as if they were numbers. There are one or two who should be banished from the service because they are not in tune with modern thinking.

We must get across the intentions of the House, of reasonable hon. Members. There are no politics involved here; this is to do with our attitude to young people who wish to study and who have anxieties about living conditions. The situation is how to break through the administrative barrier. The Under-Secretary and I are old friends and have argued on many subjects over the years.

The Labour Government could have done much more on this matter, as could the Conservative Government before them. But we are in the present tense of "now". Let us not look back. Mistakes have been made politically. But we are talking of young people, the seed corn from which the nation will grow. Since we have no parliamentary political differences on this account, can the Under-Secretary say whether he will take the initiative administratively and tell his civil servants the intention of the House, and can we, therefore, treat these young people in the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has tried to put before the House?

9.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for raising this subject, and grateful also to the three hon. Gentlemen for the tributes which they have paid to the staff of my Department and the Department of Employment. It is the Department of Employment which administers the unemployment benefit agencies of my Department on our behalf.

The whole House would agree, and I do not for a moment contest it, that we want to encourage people, especially young people, to improve their qualifications. This is desirable for their future and for the future of the country as a whole. If there were to be any barriers in the way of that, I should be the first to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they should be removed. Unfortunately, things are never quite as easy as they look. But I can assure hon. Gentlemen right at the beginning that we are absolutely agreed on the fundamental objective here.

As time is not the enemy that it so often is on these evenings, may I try to simplify the position as I see it, without, I hope, misleading, and deal with the particular points which the three hon. Gentlemen have raised?

There are various ways in which these young people, or people generally for that matter, who wish to receive training, can be helped. The first and perhaps the most obvious way is the arrangements made by an employer with the local technical college, through sandwich courses or any other type of course which is available. Usually in these cases the employer pays the individual concerned; he probably pays the fees, and there may well be grants available to that employer. It may be done by the employer individually with a local college, or it may be done through the various industrial training arrangements that we have. I appreciate that these are not the types of people which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

The second category is people who are either unemployed or who become unemployed while they are on a course. These are the people who can get unemployment benefit if they satisfy the conditions. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of the two conditions which exist for the receipt of unemployment benefit. The first is the contribution condition. It is necessary for a claimant to have paid at least 26 employed person's contributions since he entered into insurance to be eligible for unemployment benefit. That is the first condition as the hon. Gentleman well knows. It is not an especially difficult one to meet in the case of anyone who has been in employment for some time, but it is a bar to some people who have been in employment for only a short time.

The second condition, which is the one with which we are most concerned in the debate, is what is known as the "availability" condition. Here a claimant must be available for work with an employer, which means that he must be ready and able to accept at once any offer of suitable employment or to apply for any suitable employment that is brought to his notice. Attendance at a training course naturally means that its effect on the availability of the claimant must be considered, and this decision is the responsibility of independent determining authorities appointed under the Act. Ministers cannot interfere with these decisions.

I emphasise that point, because it has been said that it would be highly desirable if we were to issue instructions to our local staff as to the way in which the availability condition under the National Insurance Acts should be administered. We are limited here, in that the interpretation of "availability" is decided, not by Ministers, but entirely by the independent authorities. I think that this is entirely right, otherwise we should be judge in our own cause and people who thought that they were improperly being denied benefit would not feel that they had a fair chance of stating their case.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Could not the Under-Secretary at least use the powers under the Act to which I referred to indicate the types of course which are nationally known and which it would appear, subject to other conditions, that someone could take without interfering with his unemployment benefit entitlement?

Mr. Dean

I was coming to that. I will certainly look at the point the hon. Gentleman made with a view to seeing whether more guidance can be given, particularly in the circumstances which he has described arising in his constituency of South Shields and in the northern area generally.

I greatly hope that one of the results of the debate will be that, if there has been any confusion, by getting on the record how the scheme operates it will be easier in future to deal with the inevitably borderline cases which arise and which clearly we are anxious to bring within the Regulations if we possibly can.

I have said that it is the job of the independent authorities to interpret the law and the Regulations relating to the availability condition. I want to say a little more about the way in which the authorities have done this in the past. This explains why it is difficult for us to give precise instructions, because we must avoid trespassing on the function of the determining authorities.

It is because the decision whether the claimant is available for employment is reserved for the independent determining authorities that it is impossible to be definite about which type of claim will succeed. Each claim must be dealt with on its merits and it is possible only to sketch out the considerations which have to be taken into account by the determining authorities and which now form part of the Commissioners' case law.

Naturally a claimant is not available for employment if he is engaged in some activity for a substantial part of the day and cannot be contacted during that time or cannot or will not leave the activity to take up suitable employment. Where a claimant states that he is available for work, this would undoubtedly be taken into account, but it would not be accepted as proof of availability regardless of other circumstances. The independent authorities would have to consider whether the claimant left other employment to take up the training, whether the claimant had contracted to attend the training diligently and not abandon it before completion of the course, whether he had paid a premium or fee and, if so, how much, and whether such a fee was repayable if the student left the course. Other factors might well be how long the course of training will last and during what hours the training is given.

From what the hon. Gentleman said I think he is broadly satisfied that the employment exchanges and the determining authorities operate reasonably in this regard. That is my information, too. I think the hon. Gentleman feels that the problem arises largely on the supplementary benefit side and not on the unemployment benefit side, but I thought it was as well to state in this rather complicated area the main conditions and how they are interpreted within the national insurance scheme by the determining authorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I accept that as being broadly true, but it appears from our experience that different exchanges are interpreting the matter in different ways, and it looks as though some further information is required here as well. But I agree that the main problem has been on the other side, the supplementary benefit and social security side.

Mr. Dean

Even here, where one is dealing with cases on the margin, it is almost inevitable that there will be slightly different interpretations, depending on the circumstances of the cases. Some may just fall within, and some without.

As regards supplementary benefits, the position is somewhat complicated. I shall try to break down the various categories, and I shall come in a few minutes to the heart of the problem which hon. Members have raised.

First, school children. I take this category first because some of the young people concerned come within it. Under Section 9(1) of the Ministry of Social Security Act, young persons who are attending school or receiving full-time instruction of a kind given in schools are excluded from receiving supplementary allowance in their own right unless there are exceptional circumstances which, in the opinion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, would justify the payment of allowance. The effect of this provision is to make children dependent on their parents until their secondary education is completed. The exceptional circumstances provision is generally employed in cases in which for some reason—for example, where the school child is severely disabled or where the school child has dependants himself—it is unreasonable that the child should be maintained by his parents. It is not used where the difficulty is solely the financial circumstances of the parents, because local authorities have specific powers to help such parents.

As the young persons about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned are attending technical college, they will be affected by Section 9(1) of the Act only if they are receiving full-time instruction of a kind given in schools, for example, G.C.E. "A" or "O" level courses. Most of the people concerned are taking part-time courses and would, therefore, be regarded by the Supplementary Benefits Commission as students rather than as school children.

I come now to students as such, narrowing the matter down more to the core of the problem. There is, first, the full-time student supported by some form of education grant. Generally speaking, this student is not available for work—he cannot fulfil the availability test—and, therefore, is not entitled to supplementary benefit; but, here again, this is not the category of person about whom we are primarily concerned here.

We are primarily concerned with the worker who becomes a student in order to occupy himself usefully and to improve his position while he is, unfortunately, unemployed or made redundant. The hon. Gentleman felt that it was in respect of this category that some confusion had arisen because of what he regarded as the differing interpretations in regard to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.

As I understand it, it is not so much that confusion has arisen but that, almost inevitably, slightly differing regulations may appear contradictory when one case on the borderline is compared with another and one decision seems to go the other way. It is largely that, I think, but the fact that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a number of individual cases will help to sort this matter out and help us to see that we give the maximum help to these people.

There is one case in particular to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention which has already been sorted out, where supplementary benefit is now in payment whereas before it was not. There have been a number of such cases, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to them. They are a matter for the discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and I must be careful not to trespass on that discretion. The Commission would certainly not wish to prevent anyone from studying or improving himself while unemployed, so long as it was clear that he remained available for work and satisfied the conditions of Section 11 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, that he has registered for work.

I think that some of the problems have arisen over the type of courses and the conditions in which people register for them. The cases the hon. Gentleman has taken up, and our consultations with the colleges concerned, have considerably assisted to see that the all-important condition of availability for work can be satisfied, and that therefore the people concerned are eligible to receive supplementary benefit.

These are clearly difficult areas. I hope that I have said enough to convince the three hon. Members that we are extremely anxious, without opening the gates so wide that we reach a position where either supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit becomes available for conditions for which it was not intended, which no hon. Gentleman would want, to see that we do not allow a young man prepared to settle down on unemployment benefit to have the broad high road of that benefit whereas the chap who wants to better himself finds difficulties put in his way. That would be nonsensical, and we are anxious to try to avoid it, so far as we can within the terms of the regulations.

I hope that any hon. Member who feels that there is a case which has gone the wrong way will let me have the details. I should be very glad to investigate it with our local office or the Commission. If we found that it was not possible to make progress in that way we should be prepared to look at the law and the regulations to see whether any changes are required. My feeling is that it should be possible to bring people who can show that they are available for work within the terms of either unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit, as the case may be.

Mr. Leadbitter

We know what we are talking about here in the House. One of the great dilemmas is to know how best to deal with the skiver, the man who will neither work nor want, the chap we do not want to know anything about, the fellow who will rig the social security and unemployment benefit rules to his own advantage. If I were the hon. Gentleman I should be having to say the same things about qualifications, availability for work and so on. But what I want him to say is this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has already spoken, will intervene briefly.

Mr. Leadbitter

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a genuine case for the part-time student to be tested on his own merits, and if unemployment benefit does not fall within the general category—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Dean

I take the point. I think I can deal with it. I hope I have made it clear that if a worker who is following part-time education and is unemployed can fulfil the conditions of availability for work, the chances are that he will be eligible to benefit. I was saying that if cases come to the attention of hon. Members where they feel that that is not the position I shall be glad to look at them.

This has been a useful debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the subject. It is a highly complex matter. I hope that as a result of airing the issue we have been able to bring some clarification which will be available for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.