§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the payment of unemployment benefit to people on holiday in Spain.
§ The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals)It has never been the policy of this Government—or, so far as I know, of our predecessors—to allow people to draw unemployment benefit while on holiday abroad. It is an absolute rule that to qualify for unemployment benefit a claimant must always be available for work. Naturally, being abroad makes this condition extremely difficult to satisfy, to say the least. Furthermore, legislation imposes a general disqualification for receiving benefit where a person is absent from Great Britain.
In April 1975 a reciprocal agreement with Spain came into force. It was 1717 designed to enable social security rights acquired in one country to be transferred when the person moved to the other. This enables, for example, a pensioner retiring to Spain to draw his pension at the same rate as though he had remained in this country—a very fair provision, in my view.
A recent decision by the National Insurance Commissioner included an interpretation of our reciprocal agreement with Spain which creates problems. He ruled that absence in Spain would not of itself disqualify a claimant for unemployment benefit. The claimant would, however, still have to be available for work. It is worth noting that the commissioner disallowed the particular claim on the ground that this test was not satisfied. Thus, the claim failed and no benefit was paid.
The National Insurance Commissioner is, of course, completely independent of Ministers, and Ministers have no power to intervene in his decisions. A routine circular had therefore to be issued to local offices of the Department of Employment explaining the implications of the commissioner's decision. This circular did not reflect any new Government decision. It remains the case that benefit cannot be paid unless a claimant is available for work. However, since it has never been the Government's policy to pay unemployment benefit to holiday makers in Spain, the commissioners' decision has created an uncertainty which we intend to resolve. The Government have already taken up the matter with the Spanish authorities with a view to agreeing an amendment to the convention.
Statements this morning to the effect that the Government have decided that unemployed people can go on holiday to Spain for a year on full unemployment benefit are absolutely untrue and irresponsible. I deplore them. Our policy is unchanged. The issue has arisen only because of an interpretation by the independent National Insurance Commissioner, and, as I have said, we are taking steps to amend the agreement so that our policy can be maintained.
§ Mr. JenkinI am sure that the whole House will welcome that prompt statement by the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now apologise."] We shall 1718 wait to see about that. The House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's prompt affirmation that it is not and has not been the Government's policy to pay unemployment benefit to people holidaying abroad, but how can the Government conceivably say that they did not appreciate that this was the effect of the order which they published in March 1975?
§ Mr. William HamiltonDid the right hon. Gentleman appreciate it?
§ Mr. JenkinWe did not know about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly, because the order was never laid before the House of Commons. It was not the subject of any Question or statement. There was no reason why any hon. Member should have known anything about it whatever were it not for the vigilance of the Press, which has exposed this sort of thing.
Is it not abundantly clear from the terms of Article 23(3) of the order that it was the Government's intention that for the purposes of any claim to receive unemployment benefit under the legislation of the United Kingdom a person resident in Britain who was visiting Spain was deemed to be resident in Britain for the whole of the period he was in Spain? How could the National Insurance Commissioner have come to any conclusion other than that which he reached?
Further, when the matter came to light, why did the Government then send a circular round to all employment offices instead of making clear that they would change the rules.
§ Mr. EnnalsThe right hon. Gentleman refers to the vigilance of the Press. I should refer, first, to the irresponsibility of the Press and of the Opposition in rushing into print without first ascertaining the facts. In its story this morning theDaily Mail said:
The Government have decided that any workers without a job who decide to go on holiday to Spain will get full unemployment pay all the time they are there. The only proviso is that the holiday must not last longer than one year, and that they must promise to come back should the labour exchange find them a suitable job.That is absolutely untrue, it is disgraceful misrepresentation, and I think it deplorable of right hon. and hon 1719 Members opposite to leap into print in the Press this morning with various statements without taking any trouble to find out the facts.If I may now answer the right hon. Gentleman directly on the matter of interpretation, the question of the interpretation of the agreement arose only when the National Insurance Commissioner dealt with a case in which, as I said, he ruled out an application to have unemployment benefit by someone who was in Spain.
§ Mr. Rees-DaviesWhen was that?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe decision of the commissioner was taken on 4th May.
§ Mr. Rees-Daviesrose—
§ Mr. EnnalsThe circular was issued to the Department of Employment's offices in absolute follow-up of the decision taken by the commissioner, which I cannot challenge. In fact, I have to block a loophole as a result of the ruling perfectly properly given by the National Insurance Commissioner. As for the vigilance of the Press, the decision had already been taken by the Department that this had to be dealt with, and it would have been proper if right hon. and hon. Members opposite had found out the facts before rushing into public statements.
§ Mr. KershawBefore the right hon. Gentleman hastens to renegotiate the matter with Spain, will he reflect upon his own plans for his enforced idleness after the next General Election?
§ Mr. William HamiltonDoes my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a concerted campaign by the Tory Press and the Tory Party to undermine the whole basis of the Welfare State and that this is part of the activities of the prostituted Press to that end? Second, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who has been making the running in this matter, has sent the Department any shred of evidence? He says that he has received thousands of letters. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has not sent even one letter on the matter to him?
§ Mr. EnnalsI agree with my hon. Friend that this is part of an attack upon the Welfare State. Noticeably today more publicity has been given to this squalid piece of misrepresentation than to the whole of the important programme announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for dealing with the real problems of unemployment. What sort of sense of values do they have? Who do they think they are? The policy seems to be to tell the big lie before anyone has time to reply to it.
As for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), nearly a month ago I challenged him to let me have the evidence on which he is basing what he calls his campaign. Since then, not a shred of evidence has been sent. I am not saying that no such evidence exists. I say that an honest Member of Parliament, if he has an intention to do his job, would submit the evidence in order that it can be properly inquired into by my Department.
§ Mr. SproatIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will get all the evidence when I have amassed it? [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Is he further aware that, on the day after he told me that I was speaking rubbish, Mr. Derek Deevy was convicted of swindling £36,000 out of the social security services? Is he aware that, however much he may wriggle today, the attitude that he and his out-of-touch advisers are displaying has allowed the social security system to become one of the biggest rackets in this country today—cheating the honest taxpayer and cheating the truly deserving cases? Will he set up a public inquiry now into the whole social benefits system?
§ Mr. EnnalsI and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends, are as concerned about any evidence of abuse or fraud as any hon. Member opposite. There is no point in trying to make party politics out of this. In his statement, the hon. Gentleman made the allegation
…that at least 20 per cent. of claims for social security benefit were fraudulent and that 50 per cent.—50 per cent., he says—of people claiming unemployment benefit were not unemployed at all.1721 I might feel it necessary to set up an inquiry into that sort of allegation.
§ Mr. KinnockIs my right hon. Friend aware that one heard the misrepresented news this morning with mixed feelings? I thought that it might be the dawn of a time when the facility that the rich have always enjoyed might be extended to the poorer people in our society—namely, the ability to collect sickness benefit when workers injured in work go abroad for holidays and continue to enjoy the benefits which are paid for by this Welfare State. Will he take every opportunity to defend the rights of workers who are impoverished and unemployed against the outrageous misrepresentations and onslaughts of hon. Members opposite? If those hon. Members want to know whether they can abuse the dole, they should try to collect it themselves and subject themselves to the same means test.
§ Mr. EnnalsI believe that my principal responsibility is to ensure that those who are entitled to benefit, for whatever reason it may be, receive that benefit. But in so doing I believe that I have to protect those who are entitled to benefit against action which might be taken by those who are not entitled to benefit. Therefore, there is a dual responsibility, which I accept. I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted both responsibilities. They accept only one.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsTo return to the specific Private Notice Question which you allowed, Mr. Speaker, may I put to the Secretary of State three short questions, which arose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The only difference in this case is that the hon. Member asks whether he may do it. Most hon. Members just do it—and I have tried to stop it.
§ Mr. GriffithsI am obliged. I am sure that the Minister will wish to deal with the specific questions which arise on this matter.
First, Article 23 of the Agreement uses precisely these words:
For the purpose of any claim to receive unemployment benefit, a worker shall be 1722 treated as if he had been resident in the territory of the United Kingdom during any period during which he was resident in the territory of Spain.How could the National Insurance Commissioner have placed any other interpretation than he did upon that? How can the Government suggest that they were unaware of it, when this statutory instrument was made known last year? Secondly, why have the Government kept this matter secret and not made available to the House and the public the secret advice which they have given to their servants in the employment exchanges?
§ Mr. EnnalsFirst, on Article 23, it must be pointed out that anyone, whether he may be in Spain or any other part of the world—
§ Mr. William HamiltonThe Cayman Islands, for instance.
§ Mr. Ennals—has to satisfy those to whom he is submitting the claim that he is available for employment. It can hardly be said that someone who is on holiday on the Costa Brava can satisfy any independent authority—that is what he has to do—that he is available for work. It was precisely such a case when a woman who had been on holiday for two weeks in Spain—she had booked it some months before and she was starting a job immediately afterwards—claimed unemployment benefit for those two weeks. It was the Commissioner who said that she was not entitled to it because she was not available for work.
As to secret communications, if it is thought by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that every communication which is sent by my Department or any other Department to every office in the country must always be published in the House, I can only say that that is something which certainly the previous Government never sought to carry out. But there was nothing secret about this. If Conservative Members had been worried about this, the proper thing to do was to raise the matter with the responsible Minister. I would then have told them of the decision which had already been taken, that this was a matter that we needed to put right.
§ Mr. LeadbitterWould my right hon. Friend agree that it does not serve the House of Commons or the country if any hon. Member misuses or misrepresents our welfare and social services? He has 1723 therefore been of signal service this afternoon in coming here quickly after the irresponsible report in the Press this morning and clearing the matter up? [HON. MEMBERS: "He had no choice."] He has therefore shown quite well that the Press had really and truly misrepresented the position. Is not the corollary that it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to expect any hon. Member who has any evidence of the misuse of the social services to produce that evidence so that it may be examined? That would surely be the will of the House.
§ Mr. EnnalsI am grateful. Of course, it is true—to answer the intervention from a seated position—that I had no alternative once a PNQ had been tabled. Hon. Members who raised this issue and made statements, such as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brothcrton), who said:
I am appalled that layabouts can have a holiday in Spain at the taxpayers' expense—that was cheap and it was not true—had an alternative. That was, to find out what the truth was.Coming back to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and anyone else else concerned, long before the Deevy case I had already asked the Minister of State to make a detailed inquiry into what measures this Government should take in order to deal expeditiously with any allegations which were made either of fraud or of abuse. He has already started work and several proposals are being carefully considered. Any hon. Gentleman who wants to deal with the issue rather than to get cheap publicity for himself would be wise to put through, first, his evidence and, secondly, his advice so that matters can be dealt with responsibly by the House instead of by this disgraceful outburst.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltAt the risk of lowering the temperature, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he referred at the beginning of his statement to two conditions which had to be fulfilled before unemployment benefit was payable—that the person concerned had, first, to be available for work and, secondly, had to be in the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. EnnalsWhat I said in relation to the second condition was that legislation imposed a general disqualification on the receipt of benefit by a person absent from 1724 Great Britain. The exception to that general legislation is where there are reciprocal arrangements with other countries. Spain is one such country, and there are 28 others with which, quite properly, we have reciprocal arrangements to ensure that our citizens when abroad are able to get their rights. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring down the temperature. There is no point in Opposition Members pretending that this storm in a teacup is a tornado in Torremolinos.
§ Miss BoothroydDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the charges made by the Opposition which imply that taxjayers' money is being abused should be refuted? Does he accept that Conservative Members might be called scroungers if, having lost their seats in an election in May, three months later they take a holiday on the three months' severance pay which is given to them by the taxpayers?
§ Mr. EnnalsI shall not comment on the way in which Conservative Members take their holidays. Presumably, the hon. Member for Louth, who has been so loud in his condemnation without facts, is one of those layabouts who have already gone on holiday.
§ Mr. PriorHave not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government shown themselves to be very sensitive on this issue? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on his circular of 16th July which states in paragraph 3 that persons holidaying in Spain shall be treated in the same way as persons holidaying in Great Britain? Why was that circular put out on 16th July if, as the right hon. Gentleman told the House this afternoon, the Government have no intention of allowing anyone holidaying in Spain to claim unemployment benefit?
§ Mr. EnnalsWhen the right hon. Gentleman rose, I though at first that he was rising to apologise because even he, who once held a great office, immediately joined the irresponsible pack who got their names in the Press today on an issue that is no issue. Let the right hon. Gentleman not be so selective in his quotation. The circular from which he quoted makes clear in paragraph 2 that when a claim is made it will be necessary to consider whether the claimant satisfies the remaining conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit 1725 and, in particular, whether the availability conditions will be satisfied. If anyone thinks that he can satisfy me that when he is on holiday in Spain he is available for employment, he has another think coming.
§ Mr. WattDoes the Minister agree that the best way to end this controversy would be for him to advise those who can afford to go on holiday on unemployment benefit to go to the Western Isles? Will he point out to them that the transport arrangements in the Western Isles are so bad that it will take them longer to get back from there than it will to get back from Spain if a job becomes available?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must bring this to an end.