HL Deb 27 July 1982 vol 434 cc124-5

2.48 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 they intend Easter and Whitsuntide school-leavers to be prevented from joining 21-hour pre-vocational courses in September 1982 as they will not have been able to claim supplementary benefit for three months owing to the DHSS regulations.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, Easter school-leavers become entitled to supplementary benefit at the end of the Easter holidays and, if they do not find work, will therefore be able to satisfy the new three-month qualifying condition for study under the 21-hour rule in time to begin a course in September. Summer school-leavers, who become entitled to supplementary benefit in September, will not be able to satisfy the three-month qualifying period until December.

Baroness David

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and am relieved about the Easter leavers. Is the noble Lord aware that that still leaves the young people who leave school at Whitsun—that is, at the end of May—and those who leave in July, and that they will not be able to start pre-vocational courses in September which have been specially organised for unemployed young people? Is it not the case that, if those regulations are not altered by the DHSS, they will have to wait doing an apprenticeship of unemployment rather than training for employment?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, of course, the important feature of the supplementary benefit arrangements, and, for that matter, of the unemployment benefit arrangements as well, is that those who are entitled to those benefits should hold themselves available for work, and not be involved in full-time education or indeed in some job or other. That is why the conditions which I described have been brought into effect. We need to be certain that the supplementary benefit is not being paid to those who are simply continuing their education in one form or another.

Baroness David

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 21-hour rule says anyway that they have to be available for employment? If the Government are worried that those who leave school and then perhaps might do a full-time A-level course will be able to claim supplementary benefit, could they not make some special regulation to exclude that one group of people and give the opportunity still to those many others who will be unemployed and out of training?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it seems to me that the arrangements which the noble Baroness is describing would be in relation to somebody who was continuing their original course of education, which is not the essential purpose of the 21-hour rule. But if there is a specific narrow problem which she has in mind, I shall be happy to look at it.