HL Deb 26 April 1982 vol 429 cc701-3

2.47 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a decision has been taken on the 21-hour rule and the entitlement to supplementary benefit for those unemployed young people who are undertaking part-time courses at school or college.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the Government have been reviewing the details of the 21-hour rule in the light of the Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer's recent guidance on the interpretation of the present regulation. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in another place on 6th April, our aim is to secure that the 21 hours permitted for benefit purposes covers classroom instruction only, subject to the introduction of additional safeguards to ensure that people who have withdrawn wholly from the employment field to pursue their studies are not entitled to benefit. The details are still under consideration but my honourable friend hopes to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, which is certainly a great deal more encouraging than the Answer I received the last time I asked this Question. If a satisfactory decision does come out of this and the 21 hours can be spent on classroom work in the college or school, will Appendix I to Guidance to Supplementary Benefit Officers be altered quickly? Also, is the noble Lord aware that in only the past few days I have heard of one case where a student who was studying for only four hours at college had his supplementary benefit stopped? I do not know whether this was because he was studying for an A-level, but he has to wait eight weeks to appeal and will therefore either miss his supplementary benefit over that eight weeks or will miss the course. Will the Minister hurry this up as much as possible?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I certainly agree that the present arrangement is unsatisfactory. It will be necessary, I understand, to change the existing Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981, and that will be done as soon as agreement has been reached on the way forward.

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

My Lords, the last time this question was before your Lordships' House I made an estimate of the effect of the ruling and was told I was wrong by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then replying. I am bound to thank him for the fact that he was kind enough to write to me a few days later and agree that the answer was in error. The effect of what the Minister has now said is a reduction to 25 per cent. of the present rule. My estimate was that the 21-hour rule—

Several noble Lords

Question!

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

Does the Minister agree that under the present arrangements the 21-hour rule allows for precisely five to six hours of tuition, and to call that "full-time" is manifest nonsense?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I certainly agree that the effect of the recent decision is unsatisfactory, and that is why the Government are reconsidering the matter in the way that I have described. I must, however, say that the recent decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner and I would not wish to forecast the outcome of that appeal.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, can the Minister say roughly what is the time-scale of the present review, and will he in undertaking that review pay particular attention to the difficulties faced by refugees here, who may have more need than anybody else of the education and training of which they are deprived? Because they cannot possibly forgo the supplementary benefit, which they would have to do if they undertook full-time courses in education.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I cannot precisely forecast the time-scale upon which my honourable friend will be bound in reaching his decision, but I can assure the noble Lord that he is seized of the urgency of the matter.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, although my noble friend's Question referred specifically to unemployed young people, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no age bar and that people of more mature age will be encouraged and not disadvantaged if they take up further study? Secondly, can he say what is to happen, after the 21 hours of classroom work, to the young man or woman who goes home with a library book and does some study? Are they prejudicing their right to benefit, whereas if they went out to play bingo they would keep to the 21 hours?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Baroness's question goes to the very heart of the question. As I said in the original Answer, the intention is that the 21 hours should relate only to classroom work.

Baroness David

My Lords, can the Minister answer the second part of my first supplementary question? Will he try to speed up the appeals procedure when a case has to go to appeal, so that either the supplementary benefit or the hours of tuition are not lost for long?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the appeal procedure is, of course, independent of Government. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish us to intervene in any formal way in this, but I will certainly see if there is any difficulty with the time taken by appeals, and perhaps write to the noble Baroness if there is.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I did not hear the Minister answer my first supplementary about whether there was in effect any age bar, notwithstanding that my noble friend's Question referred specifically to the young unemployed.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, in this context different arrangements apply to those over 21. Perhaps I might write to the noble Baroness with the details.