YTS Place Refusals and Supplementary Benefit (Hansard, 25 November 1985)

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)
My Lords, the youth training scheme is clearly a voluntary scheme since eligible young people choose whether or not to join. They are also entirely free to leave at any time. It would, I am sure, seem unfair to most people if the small number who unreasonably refuse a suitable place on the scheme could nevertheless still receive full supplementary benefit immediately afterwards. In this respect, young people are treated exactly as adults.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not agree that what he has said casts doubt on the voluntary nature of the scheme? Does he not agree that where it is a question of joining a training scheme it may be appropriate for youngsters to consider that what is being put forward for them in terms of training is not what is suitable for them?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. I think it is important to recognise exactly what is implied by Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. Under that provision, young people can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to six weeks if they refuse a reasonable opportunity for training under YTS; but in practice the supplementary benefit is reduced by 40 per cent. in those six weeks. Since as long ago as 1946, people have been refused benefit or have had benefits reduced if 728 they have refused jobs or approved training. I do not see why we should treat young people differently from adults.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as one of those who strongly support the youth training scheme, I think that the key to it is not whether or not young people get social welfare benefits consequent upon refusal, but that when they start on the scheme we do everything we possibly can to ensure that they have a job when they finish the scheme. That is the most frustrating thing of all. I wonder—and I hope that this is relevant to this Question—whether there are some figures available of the number of youngsters who, after the training, have landed a job.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, the figures of course vary from region to region of the country; but nationally over 60 per cent. of young people who leave the youth training scheme go into employment, added to which another percentage goes back into full-time education. I have little doubt that those figures will be considerably better when the two-year scheme comes into operation.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, can the noble Lord define what is an "unreasonable refusal"? It seems to be a rather vague statement.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Yes, my Lords. That is deliberately vague, because it is left to the appropriate benefit officer to decide. In practice, it means two or three offers of a suitable scheme. To my knowledge, it was never done on just one refusal.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not recall that some time ago, when I questioned him from the Dispatch Box regarding this particular scheme, he said quite categorically that it was a voluntary scheme? Is it not a gross misuse of the word "voluntary" when youngsters who do not join it or leave it can be subject to penal sanctions?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
No, my Lords. That is exactly the same sanction to which adults can be subject. I think I should reiterate that the scheme is entirely voluntary for young people to choose to go into and for employers to take young people in. But if, after a number of refusals, a young person or an adult wilfully refuses to take a job, he can be subjected to a penalty of 40 per cent. of his benefit for a period up to six weeks. Surely that is not the end of the world.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say who will be the judges of whether these young people suffer a 40 per cent. loss of benefits? Before what court or its equivalent will these young people who are so accused appear? Further, will they be allowed to be defended as well as prosecuted?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, of course it is the appropriate benefit officer who so decides. But I think that we should look at the numbers involved. In the period between July and September this year, 237 young people refused; between April and June of this year 270 people refused. We should look at the matter in proportion. I suspect, too, that the benefit officers 729 who make the judgment turn a blind eye more often than not.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that there is some confusion now as to what is voluntary and what is not voluntary. Is it not a fact that between April 1984 and April 1985, 1,122 claims were disallowed due to young people not accepting a place on the youth training scheme? We are talking about that scheme. May I ask the noble Lord, if that is the case, whether the same rules will apply to the new job counselling scheme? If people refuse to be counselled under this new scheme are they, too, going to lose benefit?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I well appreciate that within this year perhaps as many as 1,000 young people have suffered 40 per cent. of lost benefit for a period of up to six weeks. However, on Friday of this week I shall go to meet the one-millionth young person to go into the youth training scheme. If we put the matter in proportion, I think we will begin to realise what exactly we are discussing. We must treat young people as adults. Surely all of us in your Lordships' House will agree that it is our duty to offer people jobs and it is our duty to offer people places under the youth training scheme. If, under the rules, they wilfully refuse to accept places for training or jobs, the most that we can do is to apply a 40 per cent. sanction on benefit for a period of up to six weeks. That at least is the proper place in our society.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the Dispatch Box, but can the noble Lord answer my second question, about the job counselling scheme?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, precise details of the scheme have yet to be announced, but I have little doubt that if adults refuse jobs, or if adults who have been out of work for more than a year wilfully refuse the opportunity to go for counselling to help them back into employment, we shall have to consider the matter and see what the position is. But the position under the sanctions is simply this: people obtain benefit through being available for work. If we say to somebody who has been out of work for more than a year, "Please come to have an interview in order to discuss your opportunities for going back into work", I hope that no one who has been out of work for more than a year will refuse that offer; and therefore I do not see the position ever arising.

§ Lord Alexander of Potterhill
My Lords, is not the stage long past when education to the age of 18 or training to the age of 18 should be not voluntary but compulsory?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I fail to understand that use of the English language. It seems to me that we are saying to young people: "Here is the opportunity of a place for training to help you on your way through life; or you have the opportunity of a job. But if you consistently and wilfully refuse a place on the scheme, the state, in all its majesty, will reduce your benefit by up to 40 per cent. for up to six weeks". For that to be considered compulsion is a distortion of the use of the English language.

§ Lord Alexander of Potterhill
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood my question. When the European Communities sub-committee took evidence in Sweden we found that 60 per cent. of the children continued education or training to the age of 18. and there was no unemployment among that group The remainder left at 16, and there was 60 per cent. unemployment among that group. The proposition I am putting to the House is that continued education or training to the age of 18 should be compulsory, as it is in so many other countries.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I owe the noble Lord an apology, which I gladly make. It is the Government's policy that as from next April all young people of 16 should be entitled as of right to a place on a two-year training programme, or to continue at schools or colleges of further education until 18. ! look forward to that day when all young people will be able to get a distinct and worthwhile qualification at the age of 18. That day will not be too far distant.