Unemployment Benefit Claimants (Hansard, 28 October 1986)

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the test of availability for work. The Statement is as follows.
This summer we have been testing a new procedure following criticisms by the Public Accounts Committee about the effectiveness of the current arrangements for testing the availability for work of claimants for unemployment benefit. The new procedure consists of an expanded questionnaire issued to all new claimants which seeks information about the work they are looking for and what steps they are taking to make themselves available for work. Claimants have also been interviewed where appropriate to assist in determining their eligibility for benefit and to help them towards suitable labour market opportunities.
Perhaps I could remind the House that it is a longstanding condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit that persons have to be available for work on every day for which they make a claim. The test of availability is normally satisfied by persons showing that they are actively seeking work on those days for which benefit is paid. The final decision about entitlement rests with the independent statutory authorities—an adjudication officer in the first instance—and there are statutory rights of appeal against decisions made.
The new procedure that we have tested in the pilot areas has shown that the better evidence provided by the new form enables a proper assessment to be made of a person's entitlement to benefit. We will therefore be introducing it progressively in all unemployment benefit offices from the end of October.
The rules that make benefit payable only to those people who are available for work are long standing and the Government have no present intention to change them. The new arrangements are simply changes in the procedure in applying the existing rules.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for making this Statement in the House today, though I have to say that we are rather disappointed that he has not given details of the expanded questionnaire. We must therefore rely on press reports in this morning's newspapers. Indeed, it seems that the Government had to be pressurised into revealing their intentions through the disclosure of documents and press reports today. Can the noble Lord explain why a Statement was not made earlier than today? Can he also say why press reports this morning referred to a Statement to be made by the Paymaster-General to the House of Commons today and omitted the fact that the noble Lord was to make a Statement to this House, as I am very glad that he did?
Is the noble Lord aware that the Opposition believes that the Statement is quite unhelpful? It indicates that the Government are bankrupt of real ideas for curing mass unemployment and are instead trying to fool the electorate by further massaging and manipulating the figures. Despite this, unemployment continues on its inexorably upward course. In September, the unemployment total soared to 3.5 million—that is, according to the official figures—and monthly increases during the past six months have averaged 9,300. If the CBI is to be believed, job losses will continue over the months to come at the rate of some 8,000 a month.
Will the noble Lord confirm that this is the eighteenth change in the method of compilation of unemployment statistics since 1979? Will he say what the official unemployment figures would show on the basis of calculation used before 1979? We should be most interested to have that figure. Does he agree that there is a qualitative difference between past changes, which are a case of statistical manipulation, and these changes which are designed to pressurise people and frighten them off the unemployment register?
Is it not the case that these questions, which are contained in today's press and which are to be asked of the unemployed, are not only obnoxious in themselves but could appear even more threatening by the manner of their asking? Is it not also reprehensible that applicants will be in danger of being refused benefit if they do not answer questions in a manner suitable to the interrogator? It seems that there can be no record of applicants refused in this way—or is it intended that a record of refusal should be kept and be open to scrutiny?
Is it correct, as reported in the press, that the recruitment of fraud staff has been halted to switch more interrogators to this scheme? Does this mean that the Government are less concerned with catching the crooked and more concerned with keeping the genuine applicant off the unemployment register? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the House.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the Statement in this House this afternoon. However, I must agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench of the Labour Party that it is an extremely brief and unrevealing Statement. I should very much like to know the real reason behind this change. I take it that the questionnaire which has been referred to is 610 a written questionnaire since the phrase used is "questionnaire issued to all new claimants."
What sort of questions will be asked? It is impossible for us to make a judgment about this until we know what the questions are, but is it not likely that people (and especially people from unskilled categories who find themselves unemployed) will be somewhat intimidated and apprehensive in filling in a written questionnaire? We cannot judge the extent to which this will be so without knowing what the questions are. We must ask the Secretary of State to tell us more about the nature of these questions.
Has it not always been the practice, and ought it not always to be the practice, for the staff of Jobcentres and employment exchanges to discuss orally with applicants what kind of work they are looking for and whether they are available? Why is it necessary, if they are doing their jobs properly with oral contact with claimants, to issue a form which they must fill in? Surely there are quite enough forms to be filled in, and this is a bad moment to ask more people to contribute more forms. Moreover, if I were an unemployed person in many parts of this country, and if I were asked what I was doing to make myself available for work and what kind of work I was looking for in areas with 20 per cent. unemployment, and in which unemployment for the unskilled (which a great many of these people will be) is high, I should take a very poor view of being asked what I was doing to look for work when the chance of getting it was so very remote.
I am bound to say that if the Government had not cut down on staff in Jobcentres, as they did a year or two ago, it might be possible to carry out this work in a far more humane and intelligent way by personal contact with the unemployed, rather than by issuing forms to be filled in which are likely to intimidate and produce little that is useful. I have not in the past joined in the argument that what the Government are really trying to do is to massage the unemployment figures. However, Statements of this kind make it extremely difficult for us not to believe that this is one of the major purposes of this change.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I must confess my amazement at the response which I have now heard from the other side about what is a mere requirement by the Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps I may read the actual wording of the Public Accounts Committee report. It says: The formal tests of availability for work are weak and we welcome the DHSS's decision to consider whether more effective tests are practicable. We recognise that resources for undertaking tests are limited but we urge that a review of the role and number of unemployment review officers now being undertaken indicates that an increase in the scale and scope of their work will be cost-effective". I should remind noble Lords that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at that time was not from our side. The PAC's recommendations is the precise reason that the test is there.
For the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have a word of advice: he should not regard press reports as infallible. The noble Lord referred to 3.5 million unemployed as being the last figure and commented on the soaring increase. I believe it was the Guardian which said on that day that unemployment was going up by 100,000, 611 whereas seasonally adjusted it showed the greatest fall since April 1979 and the number of vacancies showed the greatest increase since December 1979.
No one in your Lordships' House, no matter on which Bench anyone sits, would actually welcome people being out of work and people fraudulently claiming benefit. I am sure that that is common ground between all of us. No one would want that. Indeed, when unemployment benefit first came in there was a requirement to sign on daily. That was changed to a weekly requirement and it was during the lifetime of this Government that it was changed to a fortnightly requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked for the reason behind this questionnaire, and of course the reason is the Public Accounts Committee. She asked, "Does the staff not ask these questions?" It was the Public Accounts Committee that criticised the benefit officers because they merely asked an applicant coming in for benefit, "Are you available for work?" So long as the applicant said yes, that was an end to the matter.
I shall now read out some of the questions from the questionnaire. The first is, "What are you doing to find work?" That is not an unreasonable question since unemployment benefit is payable on a daily basis and has only been due legally since 1948 on the basis that the applicant is doing something to find work. It asks, "What job do you normally do?". I do not find that a very difficult question. It goes on, "What job are you looking for?" Someone must have some idea of what job. Then, "Are you willing to consider any other jobs? Yes or No. If No, please give your reasons". I do not find that very difficult. It continues, "Can you start work today? Yes or No. If not, please say why. When can you start work? Are you looking for full-time work? Yes or No. If No, please give your reasons. Write against each day the hours you can work". None of those questions is difficult. The form goes on, "How far are you able to travel to work? Do you have any adults or children to care for during working hours? If Yes, can you make immediate arrangements for their care if you get a job?".
Unemployment benefit is available to those people looking for work. There are other benefits the purpose of which is to look after people. The questionnaire continues, "What was your weekly wage or salary before deductions in your last job? What is the minimum weekly wage or salary you are willing to take now? If the new wage you are looking for is more than the last wage, please say why". I hardly think that that is a difficult questionnaire.
If anybody finds that a difficult questionnaire when they come in to register for benefit, your Lordships may be assured of this. If anybody protests, there is an adjudication officer who will rule on the case, and if that adjudication officer's decision is at fault there is an appeals procedure. There is a long and steady body of case-law regarding availability for work. It has been in existence since 1948. This Government are not changing it. But we are ensuring that benefit will go, and freely go, to those entitled to it.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, quite apart from the Public Accounts Committee, people in every street in the land invariably have knowledge of some flagrant abuse of the social security system as it stands? Is he also aware that those self-same people are asking today what the Government are doing about it? This questionnaire is a way of doing something about it which need bring fear only to people who are abusing the system. Those who are not abusing the system have nothing to fear. Is my noble friend further aware that people hope that he will not be put off doing his duty by silly talk about massaging figures for electoral reasons?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he said and for his reminder that I did not deal with one point made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite. I read about the 18 changes. Inflation is very much with us. It was 16 only a day or so ago and it goes up by one a day. It is true to say that there have been six changes since 1979 which have altered the nature of the count. The last change was to include the self-employed—I do not think that the self-employed in this country are non-persons—for the purpose only of calculating the percentage of those out of work. As regards the change before that, John Prescott, a spokesman for the Opposition in another place, admitted on television that he would have made precisely the same change, which was to delay the count for two weeks in order to get a more accurate figure.
The biggest change was in the administrative nature of the count itself, when we went from compulsory registration at Jobcentres, which was a clerical function and did absolutely nothing to help unemployed people, to the present count, which is a claimant count. There is one other indicator of unemployment in this country and that is the Labour Force Survey. The Labour Force Survey shows that 13 per cent. of people claiming benefit are not looking for work or are not interested in a job. The Labour Force Survey showed that at that time the figure of those unemployed who had looked for work in the previous month was 2.8 million and was going down.

§ Lord Blyton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it seems that the Government are getting very near to what the Tory Party did in the 1920s, when they cleared our people off the dole on the basis of not genuinely seeking work? We were up in arms and it took us nearly 18 years to get shot of that obnoxious thing which was then perpetrated by the Conservative Government and, by God, they are getting very near to it now!

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, let me assure your Lordships' House that I would not inflict on the unemployed the conditions which the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 inflicted on the unemployed, which was making them turn up daily in order to sign on. That we should never do. As for the rest, can anyone in the House say that he actually welcomes people not entitled to benefit getting it? There is one other very important matter and it is 613 simply this. There are many in our society who claim the wrong benefits. There are many who come forward for unemployment benefit when they are entitled to sick, disablement or other benefits and when they would often be better off with those other benefits. It is our duty, if we have anything of a caring society, to ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled and at the same time to ensure that people do not get benefits if they are not entitled to them.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, if the object is to catch the fraudsters, the noble Lord's questionnaire will be quite useless. That is because the fraudsters are extremely good at it and they will romp through the questionnaire with a smile on their face, whereas the innocent and the inadequate, who are generally worried about it, will fill it in with great foreboding. But the noble Lord will not catch one single fraudster with the questionnaire.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I repeat that this questionnaire does not have the object of catching fraudsters. The clever in our society will get past any test. That is always a problem. It is a problem for any government and any system. It applies not only to those drawing benefit, but to all things in our world. The purpose of this test, in following the PAC, is simply to ensure that people recognise and know exactly on what terms unemployment benefit is paid to them, which are that they should be available for work. That is the purpose of the form. It is not for catching people. I have heard such curious tales on the other side; I have heard such curious tales on the media before this form came out about how it would reduce the unemployment benefit paid to hundreds of thousands. Is anybody seriously saying that there are hundreds of thousands of people claiming benefit to which they are not entitled? If there are, we should do something about it. But I am not saying that. I am merely saying that this is there to help people.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, in view of the suggestions which have been made from the other side of the House about this action, will my noble friend bring out even more clearly that the Government in this action have been paying full attention to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in another place and that that body—I speak as a former chairman of it—is perhaps the most respected of all Select Committees in another place and is presided over at the moment by a very distinguished member of the Labour Party?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am well aware of the Public Accounts Committee. In a previous incarnation I had the unfortunate pleasure of being an accounting officer and was responsible for all the spending of the Manpower Services Commission. I know exactly how much we need to ensure that the PAC's wishes are followed.

§ Lord Hughes
My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he would read some of the questions which were put. Is he prepared to make the complete list available in the Library of the House?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Yes, my Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I did in fact read all the questions. I shall certainly put the list in the House. I thought it might appear to be a wrong interpretation if I did not read them all. I am afraid that I bored many in your Lordships' House but I read them all.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that there are people in all parties who believe that the best way of preventing abuse of unemployment benefit is to guarantee employment after a given period of unemployment?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Yes, my Lords. I hear that. I hear that from the Select Committee of another place about a guarantee for the three-year unemployed. It is very difficult to fulfil such a guarantee. We already have considerable problems and protests from part of the private sector about the size of today's community programme. Let me assure all in your Lordships' House that unemployment is not welcomed by any government in any country. If there was an easy way out of it, even if this Government would not take it, some other government would, yet unemployment in Europe still continues.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, is it not a fact that anyone who claims benefit in this country, be it unemployment, sickness or any other benefit, fills in a form and has to give all his family details, his background and so on, on that form? What is different about this form from the form that we all have to fill in anyway when we claim benefit, and how often will it be necessary to renew the answers in a follow-up to this form?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, this is a form which is filled in at a person's initial signing on for unemployment benefit. In that respect, it is different from the other forms, which are normally required when you are looking for sickness, disability or other maintenance benefits and when, in those circumstances you are making your claim for those benefits.

§ Lord Thorneycroft
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if anyone genuinely wishes to give help to the unemployed or to find a proper analysis of this great social problem, questions of this kind must be asked? Indeed the only question is why more of them were not asked before.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I confess that I find curious the reaction to this straightforward introduction of a piece of administrative work. It is almost as though the one thing everyone fears is that unemployment will go down as a result thereof. But true unemployment will not be affected one whit in this country by this form, for anyone who is genuinely unemployed will not be deterred by it at all.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, may I presume to congratulate the Secretary of State and recognise the deep sincerity he feels in dealing with this dreadful question of unemployment? Is he aware that the 615 implementation of the proposals in the White Paper on Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation is likely to reduce and destroy jobs for several tens of thousands of persons in the spare parts industry? Therefore would it not be proper in his view to abolish those principles in the White Paper so that a test for availability for work is not necessary? I apologise that I have not given notice of this quesion to the Secretary of State and I realise that perhaps he may not wish to answer it at this time, as it is perhaps somewhat wide of the matter before us. Nevertheless, the point was raised on this side of the House. One way to get rid of the test of availability for work is to make sure that one is not destroying jobs at this stage.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be happy that I agree with him that his question is a long way removed from the Statement before us and is one which should not be asked in regard to this form. No doubt the noble Lord can put down such a Question if he so wishes. Perhaps I may say that whatever steps are taken, I shall always hope that as part of the normal formal test for unemployment benefit it should be established that it is paid only on the condition that individuals hold themselves available for work.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the great majority of the unemployed are desperate to seek and obtain work? There is no doubt in my mind that a great many of those who have asked questions on the Statement have never experienced unemployment and the daily signing on for the dole. If they had, they would have taken a different line because unemployment is a disaster and a psychological disaster, and this form will only impose a greater burden. It is a psychological error and will only rub salt into the wound.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Lord because this test has nothing to do with unemployment; it has to do with the conditions which must be fulfilled by people drawing unemployment benefit. With the greatest of respect, I am fully aware of the evils of unemployment. I have spent much of the past four or five years of my life concerned with such matters. I believe that we are on the right course for remedying an evil, but I must repeat that unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom; it exists all over Europe. It is an illness of the industrialised world and we are taking steps to cure it; and we will.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this matter can be taken for one moment out of any political argument? Will he kindly deal with the question purely on the basis of humanity and practicality? Is he aware that many employers complain that their present employees find it difficult to be literate? Is he therefore aware that when he inflicts a number of the questions we have heard of today upon unfortunate people who are unemployed and may very well be lacking in literacy, he is in fact perpetrating what is nothing less than a torture?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who starts his question by saying that he should like to take this matter out of politics and then says to me the most underhand thing possible. Do your Lordships seriously believe that we are in the business of tricking people—

§ Lord Mishcon
I did not say—

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Oh no, my Lords, a torture, a trick—out of benefit they are entitled to? We are not. Literacy does not affect the position. Obviously if people are not literate, it does not mean to say that they are denied benefit. Of course it does not; nor will they ever be denied it. We are asking questions. We want answers from people, and by one means or another we shall obtain those answers in the most humane way and ensure that only those who are entitled to benefit receive it.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the noble Lord, the Minister, if I may say so, is doing what I did not do. I did not seek to twist any words. I am asking the noble Lord how he expects thousands of unemployed people who have not had the benefit of the education we have had to answer questions of this kind.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "torture", but I shall not go so far as to say that that is below politics. But I shall say that I do not think you have to have a double first to be able to say what you are doing to find work, nor to answer the question, "What job do you normally do?", nor even to answer the question, "What job are you looking for?", or any of the other questions. These are not trick questions. These are all questions fundamental to the grant of benefit; and they are there for that purpose, and that purpose only. If the noble Lord thinks this is a trick, then the noble Lord carries deep and base suspicions.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I did not use those words.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Is "a torture".

§ Lord Murray of Epping Forest
My Lords, will the Secretary of State accept that there is no disposition on the part of the occupants of these Benches to seek to defend people who do not treat fairly their applications for work, and that there is no propensity whatever to take action which would ensure that they were not required to pass a fair and effective test of being available for work? Any government must do this. It is equally fair that any government should pass an effective test of their capacity to ensure the availability of work; and will the noble Lord accept that on this test the Government have manifestly failed?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, perhaps I can assure the noble Lord that this is a sensible and humane test. We allow applicants to take away the form and return it later. If anybody suffers under disabilities that are such that he feels he would rather not fill in the form, that course is possible. This is not a trick in any way, as I hope many noble Lords opposite and in other parts of the House will accept.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that a claimant who has been looking after an elderly or disabled relative and who has himself been unemployed for a long time should not be disbarred from unemployment benefit if he fails to make alternative arrangements immediately and does so only after a reasonable period of time?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am sorry, but there may well be, and there often are, other benefits that people can get in those circumstances. Those are the benefits they should receive. I do not believe that we should make citizens of this country perjure themselves by saying that they are available for work when they are not. This is one of the points that the form is intended to detect.