| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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".
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.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page