HC Deb 01 July 1986 vol 100 cc809-10
6. Mr. Pike

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to bring forward his regulations on benefits to students.

Mr. Fowler

The regulations will be debated tomorrow.

Mr. Pike

When the Secretary of State made his statement on 18 June, he will recall that he refused repeatedly to say how many losers there would be as a result of the change that was being announced. Will he say now how many people will lose as a result of the changes? Is it not a disgrace? Is it not time that he sat down with officials at the Department of Education and Science and worked out a fair policy for all our students?

Mr. Fowler

I do not accept any of that. As I said when I made the statement, 400,000 students are affected overall: 140,000 gain the full £36 but, because of the concessions, many fewer and smaller housing benefit losses are taking place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source. In other words, they are not cumulative. It is not possible to give the exact figures that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and that is what I said in my statement.

Mr. Norris

As students in this country enjoy a level of public support way beyond those of all our Western competitors, does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to proceed in this matter is, first, to consider again the principle of student loans; secondly; to consider that it is wholly inappropriate for students to be financed through a system of supplemetary benefit and housing benefit, which is essentially aimed at a completely different section of society; and, thirdly, that it is of paramount importance to co-ordinate such decisions as are made about students with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mr. Fowler

Yes, certainly. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's points. The aim of the proposals is to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the education maintenance system. That aim was set out in the social security Green Paper and in the White Paper. Twenty years ago no students claimed in that way. Now most do so at an annual cost approaching £120 million in the social security budget. It is wrong to have a system which encourages young people to depend on social security. That is why we are taking this action.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will the Minister explain how it is possible to calculate how much the changes will cost if he does not know how may people will still lose? How many times in the past has the Treasury come up with extra money without being told the detailed numbers involved? Is he satisfied that there is now sufficient information in local benefit offices to enable students to get their rights rather than the rights that they thought would be removed?

Mr. Fowler

If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that information is available in local offices, I will investigate the specific cases. As I have said before, there are a number of matters about which we can be certain. For example, the provision for unemployment and supplementary benefit probably affects 70,000 people. However, I must return to the point that it is impossible to give an exact figure of the kind requested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for the simple reason that the losses are not cumulative in the way that the hon. Member for Burnley believes.