HL Deb 12 May 1987 vol 487 cc539-42

2.52 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the registered unemployed so far interviewed under the restart programme have been removed from the register and for what categories of reasons.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)

My Lords, no one with a legitimate claim to benefit has been removed from the unemployment count after a restart interview.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, the noble Lord has got into the habit of not answering the Question I ask. Will he confirm that in the letters sent to the recipients of this restart programme one sentence reads: People who do not attend interviews without good cause may lose their benefit"? Can he tell the House how many of those who were called to interview and did not attend lost their benefit as a consequence?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, as I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is perfectly well aware, being available for work has been a condition of unemployment benefit since 1947. It was re-enacted in legislation in 1975, a date that the noble Lord may recognise as being a year when this particular Government were not in power. I believe that some 8,000 or so people have not appeared and therefore have lost their benefit, but I shall check on the figure.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, in the past the noble Lord has referred to this scheme as a gateway. Does he recall that in January 84 per cent. of those interviewed under the scheme did not proceed any further? They stayed unemployed. About 1 per cent. succeeded in getting jobs. Can the noble Lord say whether there has been any improvement in that situation since January?

Lord Young of Graffham

No, my Lords, I have said to your Lordships' House—and it appears that I may have to say it yet again to noble Lords opposite—that this restart programme, which has interviewed 1.6 million people since it was introduced, is about helping unemployed people back into work; people whom I suspect noble Lords opposite would be quite happy to see receive benefit, and allowed to rot. I say this advisedly because we have found that the only way in which we can help those who have been discouraged from finding work because they perceive that it is difficult to find work is to bring them to an interview.

It is remarkable that 1 per cent. of those people go into jobs as a result of that interview. However, I must tell your Lordships that 89 per cent. of people attending restart interviews receive an offer of some sort to help them back into work; 73 per cent. accept that offer. We have to recognise that we have reversed the direction of long-term unemployment, as indeed we have reversed the direction of unemployment as a whole.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the figure he has just given us of 73 per cent. taking some route to employment underlines the fact that the long-term unemployed are emphatically genuinely seeking employment?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I have never in any way implied that those who have been out of work for a long time are not genuinely seeking employment. However, it appears that many of them have given up looking for employment and therefore it is important to bring them back. I also know that one in four of those seeking work—some 340,000 people—suffer from lack of skills of literacy and numeracy, and this makes their looking for work extremely difficult. There are many problems that we have to solve, and I believe that we are on the way to doing so.

Perhaps it will give noble Lords opposite comfort to know that I have read the following in a document called New Skills for Britain, which the Labour Party published on 19th March 1987: We will seek to bring together the restart counselling programme and other initiatives under the general rubric of the jobs, enterprise and training programme". I see little difference between that and what this Government are actually doing.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, if the noble Lord does not have the figures with him that may be understandable, but under the restart scheme is it possible that people who do not apply can have their unemployment benefit stopped? Is there any appeal for them if that course is undertaken by officialdom?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, it is perfectly possible that those who do not attend an interview can have their benefit stopped. That is possible because the condition for receiving benefit is that they should be available for work. Surely if people are available for work, they should also be available to attend a meeting at a job centre. Those who have been referred for failing to attend the interview comprise some 6 per cent. It so happens that at the end of the day 0.8 per cent. are actually disallowed for failing to attend the interview. I believe that this is a very small percentage of all those attending the restart interview. Restart is about helping long-term unemployed people back into work. It is not about anything else.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us how many long-term unemployed people have so far been helped back to work as a result of the additional job-start interviews now available at six-monthly intervals, to which he referred in his Statement to the House on 28th January last?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, it is a little early to say because these six-monthly interviews started only a week or two ago—in the main after Easter. I can tell your Lordships' House that some 320,764 people—some 20 per cent. of those written to—have left the register after receiving a letter from the Manpower Services Commission. Some 187,229, or 12 per cent., have left after having had an interview. I would not for one moment claim that all of this is a result of the restart programme because, although noble Lords opposite often find it difficult to understand, many people leave the register in any event. We should not wish to take credit for any reduction in unemployment that we did not ourselves create.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, the Secretary of State says that he does not understand the difference between the Labour Party's policy on unemployment and his own policy. Is he aware, or will he confirm, that since this Government came to office in 1979 the staff of the jobcentres has been decreased by 2,000 during a period in which unemployment has trebled? Will he also confirm that when the restart programme was begun only 1,800 were employed to conduct the interviews? As a result of both these figures long queues have formed. Does he not understand that the Labour Party will ensure that those programmes which are put forward by a Labour Government will be adequately staffed and will not cut down to the detriment of the unemployed themselves?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I think that the kindest way in which I can describe the assertions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is to say that they are total nonsense. We have substantially increased the staff of the jobcentres. We are well aware of how to conduct the restart interviews. No queues develop because interviews are by appointment. There may be an occasional short queue due to sickness or illness. We managed to interview 1.6 million people by the due date. If it is any consolation, what I saw in the Labour Party proposals—I know full well the distinction between that document and our programmes—is the general affirmation that restart is a sensible, practical way to help the long-term unemployed. It is only the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, who, I suspect, still tries to make this a party matter. Let us on all sides of the House agree that the unemployed deserve to be helped and should be helped.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, can the Minister say whether inquiries have been made of the people who fail to attend an interview before they are disqualified from benefit? If inquiries are made, what reasons are given?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, many inquiries are made: there is an appeals procedure by an independent officer. That is why some 6 per cent. of people were referred to the officer for failing to attend for interview and only 0.8 per cent. were ultimately disqualified.