HL Deb 07 January 2004 vol 657 cc177-80

3.7 p.m.

Baroness Barker

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. The Question was as follows: Whether Her Majesty's Government will confirm that the levels of social security benefits will remain independent of any numeracy or literacy tests.

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

My Lords, one third of people on jobseeker's allowance, which is a benefit for those actively seeking work, are functionally illiterate—one third. Even the most modest jobs can be closed to them—for example, stacking shelves or cleaning public buildings—if they cannot read the safety instructions that protect both the worker and the customer.

We are planning to introduce mandatory training pilots to help jobseekers to overcome their lack of basic skills. Sanctions would be applicable, not, as the Question suggests, if someone fails the literacy or numeracy test, but to those who refuse to attend training courses to help to address their problems.

Baroness Barker

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will be aware that her own department has said that jobseekers will be sanctioned if they do not complete the training that it thinks they need to undertake to make them ready for work. Will there be any independent appeal against DWP judgments in those matters? What steps will the Government take to assess the sufficiency of income of anyone who fails to complete a course?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's first point, there is an appeal procedure and, following assessment, people will be entitled to hardship payments if they are eligible. However, perhaps I may go back a step to the substance of the question. How can we he confident that we are getting this right?

When those who receive the jobseeker's allowance have their work-focused interviews, they undergo a basic screening test. Essentially, they are shown an advertisement for an assistant caretaker's job setting out the pay rate or the minimum wage and they are asked whether they can read it and understand it and so on. If, as a result, they are shown to be functionally illiterate, they are then referred to professional, independent expert assessors, who screen for dyslexia and possibly refer people on to an educational psychologist. The psychologist can, for example, screen for a learning difficulty, which may suggest that individuals should not even be receiving the jobseeker's allowance but instead, say, incapacity benefit. Following that, those who the independent assessor considers would benefit go on to attend a training course. It is only if, following those interviews, people fail to complete the training course that the question of sanctions arises.

A third of people who receive JSA are functionally illiterate. Most are white males and a third are parents, who are therefore unable to read the prescription labels on medicine bottles for their children and cannot take their children to swimming pools and be sure about the safety rules. It is no kindness to allow people to conceal their illiteracy for 20 or 30 years and, indeed, to hand their illiteracy down to their children.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, do not the Government rather have this issue back to front? They are threatening to withdraw benefit from people because they are illiterate when illiterate people, like many others, do not receive benefit in the first place because they do not understand government forms. However, does the noble Baroness agree that the use of benefit withdrawal as a weapon to secure unrelated policy objectives is objectionable? If we go along with this proposal, where will she draw the line so far as concerns using withdrawal of benefits as a weapon to obtain other objectives?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the noble Lord raised two points. First, clearly, ideally one tackles the problem at school. Already, compared with 1996, when only 57 per cent of children of the age of 11 had reached the appropriate standard, that figure is now 75 per cent. Therefore, I am sure we all hope that this is a declining problem and I am sure we all agree that a voluntary approach is desirable. However, for all kinds of reasons, many illiterate people—perhaps those with substance abuse problems or the like—will spend their lives concealing their problems rather than seeking help to address them, and we must overcome that.

The noble Lord then asked how far we would go in terms of unrelated issues. This is not an unrelated matter. We are not sanctioning people because they are illiterate, but we would sanction people if they consistently failed to attend a training course to overcome the illiteracy which is at the core of their unemployability. In Haringey only 28 per cent of people with basic literacy problems have jobs and the figure is 30 per cent for Hackney. Therefore, what kindness is it to say to those people, "You can live your lives on the margins, unemployed and unemployable and your children, in turn, will inherit that"?

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, is the Minister in a position to give an undertaking that people suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—will not be forced to undergo cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise programmes as a basis for obtaining benefit? There are rumours that that is about to happen and that those people's benefits will be reduced progressively while they refuse to undergo such therapy and programmes. Adequate information is also available to show that this is an organic and not a psychological illness.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the noble Countess may well be right on the last point and I would not wish to challenge her statement on that. However, I am a little puzzled. My understanding is that someone who has ME—whatever the cause, the symptoms are clinically recognised—would normally be entitled to incapacity benefit. He would not be expected to claim the jobseeker's allowance, which is intended for those who actively seek work, and therefore this issue would not affect such a person at all.

Lord Morris of Manchester

My Lords, can my noble friend say what consultation over this policy area has taken place with disability organisations?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, again, this matter will not affect disabled people because disabled people in this policy area would not receive the jobseeker's allowance but would receive incapacity benefit, a severe disablement allowance or other appropriate disability benefits. These measures are for people who actively seek work but who cannot take the first step in holding down a job—that is, they lack functional literacy. You cannot even be a car park attendant if you cannot calculate the fee; you cannot clean a public building safely if you cannot read the word "bleach"; and you cannot stack shelves if you do not know whether what you are doing is safe for your customers. That is the matter with which we are dealing.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to dispel an unfortunate impression that she gave in her first Answer: that people with a moderate learning difficulty are incapable of work? I know of a number of such cases. I also know of a school for children with moderate learning difficulties which has a 100 per cent success rate in obtaining jobs for its children. On my daily rounds in my own home town, I meet several workers who clearly have learning difficulties.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I said that a third of those on jobseeker's allowance—that is, those who do not have work; those are the people to whom the Baroness refers—are functionally illiterate. They may also have multiple problems but they are functionally illiterate. The question is: how can we bring them into the mainstream of society both as workers and as effective parents if they do not have the basic skills needed in today's society?