EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES (Hansard, 8 June 1981)

§ Mr. Canavan

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the clause is to get rid of a serious disincentive whereby, as a result of Government policy, young people are almost deliberately discouraged from staying on at school or from going into full-time education after they have left school and possibly found it difficult, if not impossible, to get work because of the high unemployment that has been created, again by Government policy.

Recently, the situation has worsened as a result of changes in the social security legislation and regulations. In many cases the Government make young school leavers wait for several weeks—sometimes, months—before they can qualify for supplementary benefit if they do not have a job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was reported in a Scottish newspaper at the weekend as highlighting one of the anomalies that arose after he received complaints from some senior pupils in secondary schools in his constituency. The complaint centred on whether pupils who sat the Scottish certificate of education examination before leaving school qualified for supplementary benefit. In the past it has been assumed that such youngsters had left school and were available for employment. If they were not able to obtain work they could claim supplementary benefit.

The new ruling by the DHSS means that pupils must have left school by 27 April to claim benefit. That is before SCE examinations begin. If they have not left by then they must wait until September before qualifying for supplementary benefit. That is a disincentive to sit examinations.

The Minister is responsible not only for education but for industry. As such he is responsible for much of the unemployment in Scotland, because of the failure of the Government's industrial policy. Many young people are leaving school and being thrown on to the scrap-heap. The least that we can do for such young people, until we can 211 offer them meaningful jobs, is to ensure the removal of the disincentive that discourages them from continuing or re-entering full-time education.

We should encourage young people either to stay on at school or to move to further education. The new clause imposes a statutory safeguard in that respect. It would ensure that young people are by statute entitled to an educational maintenance allowance. The amount would be not less than the person would otherwise receive in supplementary benefit if he were not in full-time employment or education.

A small but important group of people were studied by the Warnock committee—children and young people with special educational needs. Paragraph 10.109 states: The Supplementary Benefits Commission has discretionary powers to pay benefit in particular cases where it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. We understand that it takes the view that benefit can be paid to a young person aged 16–19, even though he may be continuing at school or in further education, if he is physically or mentally handicapped and his prospects are so poor that, were he to leave school or college, he would be unlikely to be able to enter employment within a reasonable period of time. The Warnock committee was concerned to learn that in 1976 only about 700 handicapped people received supplementary benefit on those grounds. It also showed evidence of considerable variations between different areas in the way in which the discretionary powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission were exercised.

8 am

I remember asking the Minister a question in Committee. I am still awaiting a reply. How many handicapped youngsters in Scotland are in receipt of supplementary benefit but also receive full-time education or training? How do the figures for Scotland compare with those for other parts of Britain, especially in view of the Warnock committee's reference to widespread variations? I hope that the Minister will reply to the important question of educational maintenance allowances for all youngsters, but especially for handicapped youngsters, who surely deserve better treatment by the Government.

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher

I shall have to reply in writing to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about the number of handicapped youngsters in Scotland in receipt of allowances. I happily undertake to do that.

The new clause would transfer from education authorities to the Secretary of State the responsibility for making payments to students over school leaving age who continue at school or who attend non-advanced courses of further education. The hon. Gentleman will know that provision already exists for the assistance of youngsters over school leaving age who continue to undertake full-time studies in Scotland. The payments, which are at the discretion of education authorities and are not, as the new clause would provide, the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, are subject to parental means tests. The rates of payment are prescribed by regulations made under section 49(3) of the 1980 Act.

All education authorities offer assistance under the regulations, and they are especially sympathetic to those undertaking vocational courses. I am not aware of any urgent reason for making changes in that area. As the hon. Gentleman may know, education authorities may provide 212 assistance to pupils of up to £435 per session. Students attending full-time courses at further education colleges may also be assisted by education authorities. Payments depend on the age of the student and on parental income. Maximum weekly rates are £26.25 for students who live away from home, and for other students £10.85 for those aged 16 to 17, or £15.95 for those aged 18 or over. All students aged 18 or over also receive a personal allowance of £8.55 per week.

Those provisions appear to work satisfactorily in Scotland. They are administered by the local authorities. We have no reason to believe that any changes are necessary in the provision now available.