HL Deb 23 July 2001 vol 626 cc1750-68

7.39 p.m.

Earl Russell

rose to move to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001 and to lay amended regulations which ensure that the reasons for failure to attend training are recorded and which provide that no sanction shall deprive claimants of more than 10 per cent of the sanctioned benefit.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the regulations which this Motion addresses are pilot regulations which deal with those at present in receipt of job seekers' allowance who are found to be deficient in literacy or numeracy. The regulations provide for them to be given instruction, and to suffer benefit sanctions of unspecified quantity should they refuse to take up the instruction on offer.

The effect of my Motion would be, first, to follow the suggestion of the Social Security Advisory Committee that, before any sanctions are proposed, we should discover the reasons for which people are refusing to take up that instruction; and, secondly—on minimum income grounds—to restrict any sanction that is imposed to not more than 10 per cent of the relevant benefit.

There is a good deal of common ground as well as some fairly deep disagreement between us. We agree on the extent of the problem. That is not a matter of bandying figures; the figures depend more on the definitions of "illiteracy" and "innumeracy" than on any possible counting. We all agree that it is an extremely serious problem. We all agree that there is a serious need for a remedy and that if we can find a way of providing it, it is important that we should do so.

The first of our areas of disagreement is the use of sanctions. The Minister knows that we have a longstanding argument about the gravity of sanctions. I shall not detain the House with that issue now; the arguments are familiar. Secondly, we disagree about whether sanctions are an effective remedy for this problem. Thirdly, we disagree about whether the pilots—for these are pilots, and we welcome them as such—are adequately designed to discover which of us is right on the underlying disagreement about sanctions.

In another place, when my honourable friend Mr Heath objected to sanctions, the Minister objected to what he said on the ground that sanctions were introduced in 1911 by Lloyd George—a slightly unexpected argument for which I have plenty of answers. When the Minister can persuade me that the Government's policy on the London Underground is identical to the policy of Clement Attlee and Herbert Morrison, then I shall develop those arguments. Meanwhile, I will let the matter drop.

For me, the crucial point about sanctions is that, in the network of responsibility, the responsibility to keep people alive is not contingent. We do it for condemned murderers; we do it for condemned terrorists. I could be persuaded that my view of sanctions is unnecessarily stressing the degree of severity if I were to get information out of the pipeline which was to show me that the effect of sanctions on those who suffer them is a great deal less serious than I suppose.

In that context, I should like to ask the Minister exactly what tracking will be undertaken of those who are subjected to sanctions. Will we discover what means of subsistence are available to them? Will we discover what destinations they get into? Will we discover what levels of debt they build up? It continues to concern me that the department does not keep statistics on the levels of debt among those on social security benefit. And how many of them—as the Social Security Advisory Committee, in an extremely able report, fears—will be sucked into the black economy?

The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, knows how difficult it is to answer that question. But he also knows, and has triumphantly proved, that it is possible to make a beginning. It is a real question that the Social Security Advisory Committee has asked. To make the pilot adequate we will need some kind of an answer.

I should also like to know the answer to the question asked by Mr Boswell from the Opposition Benches in another place. Will there be a loss of benefit pending appeal? The Minister said that he would have to check that. I hope that a week has been sufficient time for that checking to have taken place.

There is then the question of whether sanctions fit the problems of people who suffer a lack of literacy and numeracy and will not attend courses. This is the area where the Social Security Advisory Committee is most worried. It is concerned that the Government are assessing the extent of the disability but are making no attempt to discover the reasons either for the disability or for the failure to attend a remedial course. If we do not know what is the cause of the conduct complained of, how then can we know what is the appropriate remedy for it? This is a serious point. As the Social Security Advisory Committee has pointed out, these regulations will deal with people suffering from a singularly diverse set of problems.

I know that in the other place the Government agreed to make exceptions for those suffering from severe learning disabilities. That is welcome. I also welcome what was said in another place about the need to provide training, especially in recognising mental disabilities, to those who will administer these tests. I welcome that. If the Minister can add any more information to it, I shall be grateful.

I should be glad to know what is to be done about dyslexia. As the father of a dyslexic son, I know how difficult the condition can be to identify. But. with the best will in the world, in this area there will be errors. From time to time, sanctions will be imposed on people who suffer from physical and mental handicaps, and they will from time to time be punished for what is not their fault. The Minister may say that that should be borne for the sake of the greater good, but I think we must concede that there is a possibility of this effect.

I become more and more intrigued by the new Labour psychology behind this collection of sanctions, punishments and so on. It assumes, first, an extreme rationality of response among those who are subjected to these sanctions. Secondly, it assumes a calibrated, almost Benthamite, response to punishment. It comes, curiously, from a party which has experience of whipping Lord Houghton of Sowerby.

It is also rather curious to imagine these things happening to the same people at the same time. Those who possess the extreme rationality assumed in this universe usually know that they need to learn to read anyway; the question of punishment does not come into it. As soon as you are dealing with people who did not learn to read, or did not want to learn to read, you are dealing with people who are outside this perfectly rational universe and from whom you may get responses other than the totally rational ones these regulations presuppose.

In fact, the punishments will fall on those least likely to respond to them in the way desired. They will Call on a combination of the inadequate and the bloody minded, on those who suffer from an inability to read—the handicapped, the disadvantage or the neglected, who sometimes respond by treating the world in the way they believe the world has treated them—and on those who never wanted to learn to read. This is a matter of more importance than we sometimes allow.

My wife can still remember when, at the age of three and a half, she began to want to read. When all the adults in the car burst into fits of laughter at what she now recognises as a Guinness advertisement, she was so infuriated at being shut out from the joke that she became determined to read, and learnt to do so in two weeks. Whereas I, on the other hand, never succeeded in learning algebra because I never wanted to know what "X" was.

The people who will be caught by these regulations are people rather more like me than like my wife. I do not think I would have begun to want to know what "X" was if I knew I was going to be deprived of benefit for not knowing. I would instead have become extremely angry. I shall not use the word "bloody minded", but if people chose to use it, I would not necessarily feel that I could refute it.

When you are dealing with education, the trouble is that you can take the horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can make people attend the classes, but you cannot make them want to learn. So the pedagogic basis for the regulations is extremely dubious. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has expressed considerable doubts about the proposals. It says: We are concerned … that the imposition of benefit sanctions represents neither a necessary nor an effective lever for change and are actively unhelpful in redressing the nation's basic skills problem". I agree; and I speak for my noble friend Lady Sharp as well as for myself.

If we find the reasons for non-compliance and if the people who are subject to sanctions are tracked so that we can assess what happens to them and weigh it against the evil that we know exists already, the pilots will judge these matters. If they do not, we shall be returning to this matter in a year's time or less. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Literacy etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001 and to lay amended regulations which ensure that the reasons for failure to attend training are recorded and which provide that no sanction shall deprive claimants of more than 10 per cent of the sanctioned benefit.—(Earl Russell.)

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, we on these Benches share the Government's desire to raise the basic skills levels and the employability of adults. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is an extremely serious problem. We shall support the Government in any considered and reasonable plan to encourage and better equip people, particularly those on the fringes of society, to find work. We are not opposed to benefit withdrawals under the right circumstances.

We do not, in principle, object to the setting up of pilot schemes. Nor do we object to pilots with sanctions attached. However, in the case of the regulations that we are considering today, we have reservations.

We question why the regulations are being bounced on us right at the end of the parliamentary Session. Why are the Government in such a hurry? We must get the pilots right, and I am sorry that the Government have not responded more fully to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and to those organisations that replied to their consultation. Most of them have been in touch with us and continue to have real worries about sanctions and their appropriateness in this case. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the route of the stick rather than the carrot, against the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee?

The department's memorandum assures us that the pilot proposal, singling out adults for benefit sanctions, is in accordance with European law and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are not convinced that they are, particularly in regard to the convention on human rights. Nor was the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with a number of organisations with whose members I have spoken. Will the Minister give the House a clear declaration that the Government believe that their proposals are not open to a successful challenge? What arrangements are in place for appeals against the withdrawal of benefit?

On these Benches, we welcome the pilot incentives which allow unemployed adults to address their basic skills needs. Incentives have considerable potential to encourage adults, through the use of modest rewards, to acknowledge literacy or numeracy difficulties which they may well otherwise wish to remain concealed, and which at the end of the day might reasonably be regarded as private matters rather than the concern of the state.

Adults are more likely to be motivated by incentives congenial to their needs than they are by a "one size fits all" disincentive which takes no account of individual learners and their learning histories. The threat of financial sanctions may ensure the attendance of claimants on courses. It does not mean, however, that they will, or can, achieve and make progress. Compulsion also means that they may be ill disposed towards learning and towards teachers, quite apart from any negative feelings and low esteem that may result from the disclosure of their difficulties.

What will happen to the attender, rather than the participant? Will his or her benefits be subject to sanctions? Do the Government have any evidence that adults can be forced to improve their literacy or numeracy against their will? Those people—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)

My Lords, the noble Lord's point puzzles me. What evidence is there that a person will be an attender rather than a participant? What distinction is the noble Lord drawing?

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I was referring to the person who turns up and just sits quietly in the back row without contributing in any way.

Do the Government have any evidence that adults can be forced to improve their literacy or numeracy against their will? Those people with lower levels of basic skills at whom sanctions will be targeted are those who have benefited least from their initial educational experience as children. Why will an element of sanction prove more attractive or change that attitude? Indeed, it could be argued that it will serve to perpetuate their distrust of the education system.

So long as jobs exist in the UK which do not require higher levels of literacy and numeracy, there is a moral case to be argued that unemployed people should not be penalised for failing to aspire to higher level jobs. It is right for the Government to promote healthier lifestyles, but it would be wrong for social security regulations to penalise benefit claimants who choose not to take regular exercise!

The reasons adults have low levels of basic skills are many and various. An effective policy for improving these levels will need to be sensitive to this multiplicity—a condition that a single instrument in the form of a sanction is unfitted to meet.

There is evidence to suggest that adult learners with low basic skills levels will be motivated to learn only if their individual circumstances are sensitively responded to in a learning environment that is encouraging and supportive. It must also be one that is responsive to individual needs, as compared to a policy whose major thrust comprises an "insensitive-to-individuals" sanction. We on these Benches want to protect those who are vulnerable, in particular those with learning difficulties and disabilities. As an example, how do the Government plan to identify potential trainees who may be dyslexic and who are unaware of it? That question was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Studies of the incidence of dyslexia in disadvantaged groups—for example, the homeless and prisoners— suggest that up to 30 per cent are dyslexic. NACRO tells me that it believes that withdrawing benefits would be counter-productive. Without some other means of income, it is inevitable that some previous offenders will turn to crime to make ends meet.

Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we urge the Government to assess for possible dyslexia those claimants showing reluctance to attend, or leaving a course early.

We welcome the fact that specialist training will be delivered for specific groups, including those with learning difficulties, through the pilots. It is crucial that personal advisers have the expertise to identify claimants who might benefit from such specialist training. It may take time and considerable expertise to make an appropriate assessment of the level of skills of somebody with a learning disability.

For that reason, I was concerned to read on page 21 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that providers delivering assessments should have achieved the Basic Skills Agency quality kitemark or, will have expressed a commitment to achieve it within two years". Do the Government feel that that is acceptable? Decision-makers, as they are described on page 7, will have a crucial role. They must be properly trained. Inflexibility of thought and attitude will be extremely detrimental to people with special needs. Fair treatment is especially important when the removal of benefits is possible, particularly when removal of that benefit is being piloted in one area and not anywhere else.

The NACAB has told me that there are not sufficient places available on good quality literacy training schemes. Can the Minister confirm that any pilot scheme will include some independent assessment of the availability and quality of training? Clearly this aspect of the programme has not been thought through. Do the Government believe that they have enough time to do this before the proposed introduction of the pilot on 17th September?

The NACAB has also told me that numerous clients complain that they were not fully aware of benefit sanctions, even when the Employment. Service says that it has sent such people a letter. There are frequent disputes about whether any information was given. We hope to see a commitment that the effect of the new regulations will be fully explained to people verbally, as well as in writing. This is also important for those with learning difficulties. It would not be sensible to send a notice in writing to someone who lacks literacy skills.

Can the Minister confirm the time-scale of rolling out these local pilots into national arrangements? Do the Government have any plans, in the future, to apply these regulations to other benefits, or to other groups of claimants—such as people claiming family-related benefits or disability benefits? Bearing in mind the disquiet heard in the other place from all corners of the House, I look forward to hearing a great deal of reassurance from the noble Baroness.

8 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend just said. He made a remarkably good and well-informed speech, and has obviously undertaken a lot of work on the subject. I see noble Baronesses on the opposite side of the Chamber who know a good deal about teaching. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he was disinterested in what "X" is in algebra. Judging from my experience, the difficulties of learners who have not learnt to read are rather different from the noble Earl's: they do not just amount to boredom at the idea that you must know what "X" means. I do not believe that that worries them very much. Their problem is one of lack of confidence, and lack of incentive. But, above all, it is lack of confidence and a feeling of fear.

Very often these people have learnt how to read in primary school, but have lost the ability to do so at secondary school. That is extraordinary. It shows the deep psychological difficulty here that must be overcome. There is much evidence to show that just establishing a course and making people attend for fear of the imposition of a sanction will not do anything at all. It is absolutely right that the Government should be thinking of specialist courses, and of special ways of looking at this problem. As a nation, we must find out how to overcome the fear that people experience. So far, the only mechanism that has worked almost always is where an individual tries to teach someone else to read. That helps the person with the difficulty. It gives him or her the confidence to carry on, and it works. However, it is not easy to apply that approach across the board.

Personally, I should like to see a movement of volunteers to carry out this form of teaching. I believe that that would work. However, it would be difficult to establish such a scheme and the problems involved are enormous; indeed, there is no question about that. I believe that the Government should think long and hard about this proposal. Fear is the worst element to introduce into the scene. I suspect that fear of loss of benefit would block the ability to progress in learning to read altogether. Of course, it might help some people, but I do not know. I cannot think of any professional who would agree with this approach.

Similarly, I cannot think of any case with which I am familiar where someone who has experienced such difficulties would be helped by the introduction of an element of fear. I do not believe that this is the place for the stick. You must bring people to the point where they have to face up to their problem, and realise that their unemployability, or their lack of ability to be promoted, is due to this inability. But great care must be taken about how this proposal should be implemented. I do not believe that social security experts know very much about the problem: they just know that some people who are in receipt of benefit cannot read. That is a fact. But the people who do understand are those who have involved themselves in adult literacy teaching throughout this country—and, indeed, across Europe, where much is known about this difficulty. I hope that the Government will think carefully before they apply such sanctions to any extent. First, it would be counter productive; and, secondly, it would be extremely cruel.

Lord Layard

My Lords, there is an overwhelming case for what the Government propose. I put it in terms of four basic points. First, we have had a voluntary system for a very long time. For years it has been possible for unemployed people to receive free tuition in basic skills, while continuing to draw benefit. The problem is that very few have chosen to take the opportunity to do so. That is why two out of every five unemployed people are functionally illiterate. Surely we must be open minded about this problem. We must try to find a better approach to the problem. That is the argument for this experiment.

Secondly, the proposal is only a pilot scheme to ascertain whether compulsion can make a difference. Moreover, the scheme will cover just two geographical areas. Surely the House would like to know whether this would make a better impact on the problem that we all agree exists. Thirdly, these pilots will be subject to a full evaluation by independent assessors, including an evaluation of how the sanctions aspect worked. How could we possibly know whether sanctions would make a difference unless we try them in this way? It seems extraordinary that the Social Security Advisory Committee should encourage us to try to imagine what sanctions would do without allowing us to put them in place. Social science—indeed, any kind of public policy—cannot be conducted on that basis.

Finally, there is the question of the penalty. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants a penalty of some sort, but it must be a smaller one to that proposed. I believe that that would prove to be extremely confusing. The benefit system and the sanction system are already too confusing and complicated. What would be the point of introducing yet another rather minor variant just for a gesture of some sort? The sanctions regime already allows for the protection of vulnerable people. Some 60,000 sanctions are implemented every year, and here we are considering a fairly small number. What sense would it make to create a new category when we have a system that we are more or less managing to implement on a very wide scale?

If I take those four points together, it seems to me that the case for the Government's proposal is overwhelming. The voluntary system has failed, so we need to search for something better. We are proposing only a pilot scheme, which will be evaluated, and it should be kept simple. The last thing we want to do is to muddle the system with further complexities.

I have one further, but more general, point to make. The noble Earl raised the general theory of human nature towards the end of his presentation. On the whole, that is not borne out by the evidence on unemployment, on how unemployed people behave and on how that affects unemployment. My colleagues all around the world have been researching this subject for many years. There is a very strong weight of evidence to show that the way unemployed people are treated has a profound effect on their behaviour. If the regime is tighter, people will respond; and that, in turn, affects the level of unemployment.

If we were satisfied with the present level of unemployment that would be all right. But I believe that we should all start from the position that the present level of unemployment is intolerable; indeed, the figure is two or three times higher than that which applied in the fifties and sixties. We have to do very much better in that respect. There is one finding that emerges from all the evidence: the way we treat unemployed people will affect the level of unemployment. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some obvious examples of certain countries.

On the one hand, 10 years ago some countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands had high unemployment—as high as anywhere else—but decided that they must change their approach and that they must simultaneously offer greater rights to the unemployed and more help but also impose a responsibility on the unemployed to take advantage of that help. That has had a most dramatic effect in those countries where unemployment has been more than halved with no increase in inflation.

At the other extreme, countries such as France and Germany still have a system of rights to benefit with few responsibilities attaching to them. In those countries unemployment is still high. The research shows the impact of those policies. In Britain we are somewhat in between those two poles. Bit by bit we are getting away from a system where one just has rights to benefit towards one that is based on greater rights and more help but also greater responsibilities. That is important if we are to deal with the unemployment problem to the advantage of the unemployed as well as the rest of society. If I think of this as a debate ultimately about full employment, it is inconceivable that we can get back to full employment if we flinch from the kind of measures which are proposed only as a pilot to determine whether they will improve this terrible problem.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not think that the Government's measures to make work more attractive than benefit—which are many and various and are being developed—are more likely to help on the literacy question than the fear of losing benefit as they constitute a proper incentive as opposed to just the fear of losing something? I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. It increasingly amazes me to hear these comments coming from the Labour Benches but he is absolutely right. However, in the case of literacy, the measures to increase the attractiveness of work, as opposed to the fear of losing benefit, are much better because they do not contain the element of fear. Does the noble Lord agree with that?

Lord Layard

My Lords, one has to operate on all fronts. Making work pay is an extremely important part of the Government's policy. If I am asked to provide a rank order, as it were, my feeling is that offering positive help to people while they are unemployed to get them better trained, better placed and more work ready is more important than making work pay. However, all those factors are important.

In the case we are discussing the national literacy and numeracy tests will be extraordinarily important in the development of the Government's basic skills policy and in whether employers at last become interested in whether their workers have basic skills problems. take this opportunity to advertise those tests. One of the reasons employers have been so slack about the matter is that it is difficult for them to know whether someone has basic skills problems. People are good at hiding them. The factor which will most motivate people to deal with their basic skills problems and to face up to them and address them is if they think that by doing so they will obtain some kind of acknowledgement of their capabilities which they can show to an employer.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will not press his Motion.

These draft regulations are essential to the Government's national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, as outlined by my noble friend Lord. Layard. For far too long the scandal of adults not being able to read, write and do maths has gone unchecked. We shall address that. Improving the literacy and numeracy skills of 750,000 adults by 2004 is one of our top priorities.

As your Lordships may be aware, around one in three of the unemployed have literacy and numeracy skills below that of the average 10 year-old. That is twice as many as in Sweden and is one of the worst records in the OECD. They are functionally illiterate. That means that they cannot often use Yellow Pages to get a plumber; they cannot read the departure screen at a railway station or use a street map. Therefore, they cannot even go into the job of last resort; that is, driving a minicab. They cannot read a tabloid newspaper or their children's school reports. They cannot make sense of instructions to work a machine or even follow the instructions on a bottle of medicine for their children. They are far more likely to be unemployed, depressed and not vote. Worse than that —I believe that this is one of the compelling reasons for intervening—is that in the case of children, particularly sons, who are brought up in a household where their parents do not read, not only the father's unemployability but also his illiteracy cascade down the generations. We know that to be true.

Earl Russell

My Lords, if I might save the Minister's time, we agree with the arguments that she makes; the question is, will the regulations do anything to improve the situation?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, unless one accepts, first, the scale of the problem and, secondly, the inadequacy of all of the approaches undertaken so far to address those problems on a voluntary basis, we cannot move on. The noble Earl seems to think that we can describe the problem, continue with existing policies, possibly adding the odd incentive, and all will be well. It is precisely because of the depth and the breadth of the problem and the way in which that deprivation is inherited that the Government cannot continue simply with a voluntary approach.

We know who many of those suffering functional illiteracy may be. For example, English may not be their first language. Many may have finished formal education at primary school, partly because of their age. As the noble Baroness rightly said, others may have finished primary school, "lost it" at secondary school and entered a truanting cycle. As other noble Lords have said absolutely rightly, others may have hidden learning difficulties and may have spent 20 years in developing coping strategies to conceal them. They remain unemployed.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever—who seemed to suggest that while any jobs may exist which could be performed by someone without literacy or numeracy skills we did not have a moral case to press them into remedial literacy training—that, whatever the cause, 49 out of 50 jobs now remain closed to people with functional illiteracy. I suspect that in 15 to 20 years' time the figure will be 495 jobs out of 500. That is the degree of handicap to life chances we are bestowing on them and their children.

We believe that the key to improving the prospects of such adults is to raise their skill levels so that they can find and keep secure work. We do not really know the most effective measures to raise the skill levels of the unemployed. We still do not know what works when dealing with people who have functional illiteracy, particularly when they have managed to conceal it for many years at the price of continuing unemployment. That is why we propose five pilots for jobseekers as part of our national strategy. I emphasise the word "pilots". They comprise mix and match schemes, running for six months, carefully evaluated to measure the impact of different approaches, not "one size fits all". Let me describe them as I am not sure that noble Lords fully appreciate them.

Two of the five pilots concern new approaches to screening jobseekers for basic skills. One of the pilots will test the impact of early screening at 13 rather than 26 weeks' unemployment, while the other will try out a new screening tool designed by the Basic Skills Agency. After screening, those who have been identified as possibly having inadequate basic skills will be given an independent diagnostic assessment. That assessment will determine more clearly whether jobseekers have difficulties with literacy and numeracy, where their ability lies and what the most appropriate course is for each individual. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that there is no question of putting everyone on the same course. Different courses, some tailored specifically for clients on the pilots, will be provided to meet different levels of need.

The other three pilots—as I say, two are about points of intervention and how one intervenes—will test out new approaches to motivating jobseekers to improve literacy and numeracy. A pilot in Wearside will provide financial incentives for jobseekers to undertake training—no sanctions, just financial incentives—a further £10 a week and a £100 bonus for completing the course. Another pilot in north Nottinghamshire will test the requirement that jobseekers with poor literacy and numeracy must undertake training or risk a temporary loss of benefits. The third pilot in Leeds will test the impact of both sanctions and incentives. Therefore the schemes comprise two involving interventions, one involving sanctions, one involving a benefits increase only and one involving a mix of both benefits and sanctions. A full range of possible ways forward is being explored in those five pilots because we say in all humility that we do not know what works best. What we do know is that the present strategy has failed generations of men and women and their children. Therefore we are going for mix-and-match ranges.

We do not need new legislation to pilot incentives. But it is necessary for us to seek powers to test sanctions in this context. That is why we bring forward the draft regulations today. Subject to your Lordships' agreement, these regulations would enable the Government to establish pilot schemes imposing sanctions on people claiming JSA if, without good cause, they refused or failed to take part in literacy and numeracy skills training. The two pilot schemes involving sanctions out of the five would involve jobseekers aged between 25 and 49 who had been claiming benefit for at least six months and had been assessed as needing training. The sanction would be for two weeks in the first instance. The sanction for a further failure to participate within 12 months could be four weeks' loss of JSA.

We fully recognise the need to be sensitive to the complex problems that everyone identifies are carried by those who are disadvantaged by their illiteracy. It has been a particular concern of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is reflected in its report on our proposals. We accept that there will be jobseekers for whom basic skills training would be inappropriate. We have incorporated an additional safeguard into the draft regulations that are now before your Lordships' House. We have made clear that whether or not a claimant will be required to undertake training will be subject to discretion.

There will be, therefore, no question of compelling all jobseekers with low levels of literacy or numeracy to undertake courses whatever their individual circumstances. Such a course must be appropriate for the individual before he or she can be required to undertake it or risk losing benefit. For example, jobseekers for whom English is not their first language and who need additional support in English may be referred to language support where appropriate.

The Social Security Advisory Committee also expressed concern, rightly—it has been aired today—for people with mental health problems, learning difficulties and dyslexia. Claimants with those disabilities are more likely to be receiving incapacity benefit or other disability allowances than JSA. The pilot schemes apply only to those on JSA who are presumed, therefore, to be available for work but who are effectively unemployable because of their illiteracy. Where a JSA claimant has such a disability—I share your Lordships' concerns for people with mental health problems, learning difficulties and dyslexia—personal advisers have clear guidance to refer them to a disability employment adviser. Such advisers are specially trained to help people with disabilities and give them appropriate support and guidance. Those clients would not be required to undertake unsuitable training or risk losing benefit. Indeed, the very process of screening may help to bring forward people who have so far concealed some of those disabilities and ensure that they receive the benefit they should have had for many years but have failed to do so. For example, instead of JSA they may be entitled to claim severe disability allowance. They may be entitled to claim IS with a disability premium.

If a jobseeker begins a literacy/numeracy skills course and it becomes apparent that the course is not suitable—perhaps he or she is dyslexic—it will be possible to exercise discretion and stop attendance on the course. In such a context, much depends on the sensitivity, and thus the training, of the personal advisers. They not only have the full six weeks Employment Service training—it covers equal opportunities, interviewing skills and preventing and calming difficult situations—in addition, the Employment Service is preparing special training packages for each pilot to cover how to judge the exercise of discretion. Other safeguards will include good cause for failing to attend appropriate training, illness, domestic emergency or caring responsibilities. In that case, no one will be sanctioned and lose benefit. That brings me to the question of sanctions.

I believe that we are able to meet virtually every point raised by the Social Security Advisory Committee apart from the point on sanctions. I wish to turn to that now. Jobseekers will have the opportunity to explain their actions before any sanction decision is taken. They will be given that information verbally and in writing, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said. They will have the opportunity to bring with them a friend, advocate or mentor. That might be particularly important if there is a language difficulty—for example, because English is not their first or main language. The decision will be taken by an impartial decision-maker; and in the meantime benefit will continue to be paid in full. If a decision-maker decides that a sanction is justified, the jobseeker will have the usual right of appeal to an independent Social Security Appeal Tribunal. Clearly, if someone has had his benefit removed, his benefit does not continue while he appeals, as applies with regard to any other social security benefit. If someone has had his incapacity benefit removed and he appeals, his benefit stops until the appeal is heard. If the appeal succeeds, the benefit is reinstated. The proposals are in line with all the other sanctions and appeal systems of support that the social security system offers. If the tribunal finds in a person's favour, then arrears of benefit will be paid.

Where no such special circumstances exist and refusal to undertake training results in a sanction, JSA will be stopped for two weeks in the first instance. Even then, at any point the jobseeker could regain the allowance if he changed his mind and took in basic skills training. I give way.

Earl Russell

My Lords, for clarification, is the Minister saying that JSA will be stopped in whole or in part?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the sanction applies to the individual claimant, not to the claimant's family where they are eligible for hardship payment. Jobseekers can claim payments of JSA at a reduced rate if they can show that they or a family member would otherwise suffer hardship. In other words, the rules are consistent with the rest of the social security system. Hardship payments will provide immediate protection for vulnerable groups such as jobseekers with dependent children. Thus, for instance, a couple with three dependent children who would normally receive some £277 in total benefits would receive a hardship payment of £256. If a family member were pregnant or seriously ill, they would receive £266. That is a sanction of £11 on an income of £277.

I do not want to be "picky", but as the noble Earl's Motion stands, the removal of 10 per cent of sanctioned benefit would fall on the entire benefit. It would make the person far worse off than through the sanction that we propose of 20 or 40 per cent on the individual claimant's benefit.

I do not think that there is any noble Lord in the House who would not prefer a voluntary to a compulsory approach. We do not propose these pilot schemes lightly. But if we know that the voluntary approach has failed and that people are saying, "I refuse to engage in any training which will remedy my illiteracy and, therefore, I insist on remaining effectively unemployable and ensure that my children remain unemployable in the future", I think that the state has a case for saying that this is part of the ongoing rights and responsibilities debate outlined by my noble friend Lord Layard.

The voluntary approach has not worked. Free learning, free support and free outreach work have been available for many years to adults who wish to improve their basic skills. Yet significant numbers—probably the majority—have failed to take advantage of those opportunities. We have to engage in that debate. Sadly, in handling some of the New Deals—for example, involving lone parents, disabled people and the like—I found that when the original letters went out with interview times attached and people believed that those interviews were compulsory, about 95 per cent of people turned up. When we did not attach interview appointment times—the letter simply offered an invitation to an interview—the attendance rate fell to well below half that figure. Although they were not compulsory, when people believed that those interviews were compulsory, it worked. When the situation was voluntary, it did not.

Training makes all the difference. I recall one lone parent, a woman aged 29, who had never held a job and had learning difficulties. Through the New Deal for Lone Parents, she undertook a health and hygiene course which enabled her to gain a job for the first time in a butcher's shop. She had learning difficulties. She probably should not have been on JSA but she was; and we helped her through.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, queried the Government's commitment to what he called the extreme rationality. He believes that if people refuse to learn to read that shows that they are irrational; that they cannot be expected, therefore, to respond rationally to whatever the Government may do. The Government have to assume that people are moral adults. It would be the height of arrogance for us to assume that they were not. I suggest that his policy is one of despair. If the Government do not respond with a rational response we are in the Kafka-esque territory of terrifying arbitrariness; and I would not wish noble Lords to engage in that territory. How will the noble Earl ever know whether sanctions will work until those sanctions are applied in two out of the five pilots? How can we know when we do not have the knowledge or information on which to base those assertions?

That is why we are proposing pilots for both voluntary and mandatory regimes. Of course we will evaluate the pilots, with independent evaluators carrying out qualitative and quantitative work on the results. We will make sure that we track people who are sanctioned because they refuse training without good cause. While under sanction, claimants would normally tend to be tracked by attending fortnightly interviews. Those who choose to leave the JSA system for whatever reason, possibly to go into the black economy, could not normally be tracked by the Employment Service. The evaluators will include a sample of them to be followed up, but only if they have given their consent to taking part.

In other words, through the evaluation exercise we shall seek to establish why people have withdrawn from the JSA system rather than undergo training. That will include finding out about moving into the black economy in so far as we can discover that information, finding out about debt in so far as we can judge how much extra debt has been incurred as a result, and all the other considerations. We need the fullest possible knowledge to ensure that we can deliver our programme in ways that work with the grain of people's consent. If we find that sanctions fail to make a difference, I shall not pursue the policy, but we cannot know that yet. We know that the voluntary approach has failed, so we have to give our best efforts to finding out whether the compulsory approach, as proposed in two of the five pilots, will work.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, pressed me on whether the regulations were compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. No individual will fall within a pilot unless he or she has been receiving jobseeker's allowance for at least six months and has been unsuccessful in finding employment for at least that long. The mandatory training will apply only if the individual wishes to continue claiming JSA and if the training is considered appropriate.

The underlying purpose of the pilots is to improve opportunities for employment. They are not intended to penalise people merely for lacking basic skills. However, since receiving the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, we have added an extra safeguard to the draft regulations. Paragraph 2(d) of Regulation 3 specifically provides that the Secretary of State must consider that literacy and numeracy skills training would be appropriate for the person concerned before requiring that individual to participate in training. That will ensure that there is no direct or indirect discrimination contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We all recognise that there is an appalling waste of life chances while adults remain functionally illiterate and pass that illiteracy on to their children. Our staff must be well trained and supportive; I believe that they will be. The training courses must be appropriate and supportive; I believe that they will be. Good cause must be properly available, as it will be. Hardship payments will continue to be properly available, as they should be.

We do not know what works best, hence these five six-month pilots. They are each different. We shall properly evaluate that mix and match approach. If we miss this opportunity to equip people with the skills they need to hold down the jobs they need, we will duck the issue that the electorate sent us here to address.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness a number of other specific questions, particularly about the Basic Skills Agency quality kitemark. I should be grateful if she would write to me about those important points and place a copy of her letter in the Library.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the House for their response to the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for their support on a number of points.

I am extremely interested in what the Minister said about tracking. That is the heart of the argument, because until we have evidence, what we say on both sides of the argument remains hypothesis. I am unable to judge the force of what the Minister says simply on the few words for which she had time in the Chamber. If she were prepared to write to me in greater detail on the subject, I should be extremely grateful and extremely interested, because that is the issue on which all the arguments depend.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what she said about training and about the ability to bring a friend or mentor to an interview. In cases of mental handicap or language difference in particular, that could be vital. I appreciate her comments.

On the other hand, to say simply that the voluntary system has failed is not an answer. When one system has failed, it does not necessarily follow either that another will succeed or that the old one would not succeed if it were tried a little better. Both those questions remain open in my mind.

The House should be honoured by the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, to contribute to our debates. He is a scholar of great standing and I was tempted to greet his intervention in the debate with the classic first night cry of "Author!". As well as being a great scholar, he is also a highly successful teacher. I do not just refer to him as one of the 364 economists—and the first among them—but I speak of my own knowledge of his success in teaching me to play the Eton wall game, for which I remain eternally grateful.

However, I regret to say that on this occasion I found the noble Lord a good deal less effective as a teacher than I found him in that context. He said that we already have a voluntary system. We do. I think that he will agree that for a long time—though perhaps slightly less so recently—it has been somewhat of a Cinderella in our education system. It has also not succeeded in overcoming the sense of shame felt by adult illiterates. We should have thought more about that, because it is one of the biggest obstacles to getting adult illiterates to seek help. Depriving them of their benefit will not diminish any sense of shame they may feel. Until we overcome that, I do not see how there is going to be any helping them.

The recognition that illiteracy is a common condition is as important as anything for getting people to seek help. I do not think that the proposals will do that. I think that they will increase the determination to conceal the condition, because admitting to it will carry penalties.

The noble Lord, Lord Layard, says that the pilots will show what is the best response. I wish I could be persuaded of that, but I am afraid that I agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee that the pilots will show what is effective only if we can classify their results according to the reasons for refusing the course. Different remedies are likely to be effective for different reasons.

The Social Security Advisory Committee wants to know the problem before prescribing the solution. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that I cannot find that to be absurd, or even at all extraordinary.

The noble Lord also argued that people in the labour market respond to a tighter regime. I accept that, but they respond in more than one way. When Louise Casey, now the homelessness tsar, worked for Shelter, she used to travel round Soho at night and found a great many people who had responded to a harsh regime in ways that would not satisfy the reforming aims of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and found no place in any recorded statistics.

The noble Lord referred to a reduction in unemployment, but all that he can really talk about is a reduction in recorded unemployment. As one academic to another, I recognise that we are prisoners of our documents and tied to our sources.

Lord Layard

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we also have figures for employment, which come from a different source—from employers? Those figures show that the employment rates are the big success story, as well as the unemployment rates.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been following the statistics for the growing number in the population classified as economically inactive. A great many of them may be active in ways of which we know nothing, and of which they wish us to know nothing. I also do not know whether he has read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on the black economy, which has shown that a great many people are economically active whom no record shows to be so. We know that there are large numbers of people in the economy who are drugdealers, pimps, common crooks, burglars, thieves and all the rest. They do not appear in any statistic of employment. I do not believe that either the noble Lord or I can be confident in attempting to quantify that.

Therefore, when the noble Lords talks about response and reducing unemployment, he can talk only about recorded unemployment. We do not know which of those responses is more common.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, because this benefit relates only to JSA and thus we are dealing with recorded employment, the problem does not arise?

Earl Russell

My Lords, but the problem may well arise in relation to what the people do after they have been sanctioned. That is the focus to which I have at all times referred. When people are deprived of their JSA, some will draw that benefit again later and some will disappear. It is what is done by the ones who disappear that interests both the Social Security Advisory Committee and me. That is the real question. It is capable of answer, but not from the present evidence.

Throughout this debate, when we have talked about compunction and changing people's hearts and minds, I have been reminded of the debate which has gone on for centuries about compulsory church attendance and the creation of faith. I have heard the Minister defending work-focused interviews in words which come almost exactly from St Augustine of Hippo. St Augustine was very often right, but this is one subject on which I believe that he was not.

The lesson of history is that compulsion in religion has taken at least 40 years to be effective, wherever it has been introduced. In fact, it is effective only when it is applied to people who are subjected to it from a young age. The Jesuits' rule of the first seven years is correct. But as people are not compelled actively to seek work at the age of seven, we cannot make that apply in this case.

I am sorry that the Minister finds it so difficult to accept the infinite variousness of the human race. But, as Carlyle replied to the lady who said, "I accept the universe", "Gad, ma'am, you'd better!". I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.