INCOME RELATED BENEFITS

HC Deb 24 April 1989 vol 151 cc752-78

(1) In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words '(applicable amounts and polygamous marriages)' there shall be inserted the words 'except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule IA applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25'. (2) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words '17(a) and (b)' there shall be inserted the words 'except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule IA to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall be treated as if he were aged 25'.".—[Mr. Flynn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 106, in clause 10, in page 8, line 4, at end add— (3) In section 22 of the 1986 Act (income related benefits) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted— '(9) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a person in board and lodging accommodation shall include an amount in respect of his being a person in board and lodging accommodation. (10) For the purposes of this section "board and lodging" accommodation means—

1. (a) accommodation provided to the claimant or, if he is a member of a family, to him or any other members of his family, for a charge which is inclusive of the provision of that accommodation and at least some cooked or prepared meals which are both prepared and consumed in that accommodation or associated premises: or
2. (b) accommodation provided in a hotel, guesthouse, lodging-house or other similar establishment; or where facilities for the preparation of food are inadequate to the needs of that person.

(11) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which the facilities for the preparation of food are deemed to be inadequate.'.".

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.

This issue raised the most passionate feelings in Committee, when we heard heartbreaking stories of young people who were suffering as a result of the social security changes. The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove some of the worst excesses of the Government's calamitous changes, which have made tens of thousands of the most vulnerable young people into outcasts of the social security system. Last week, we generously and gratefully acknowledged the speed with which the Government had moved. They promised in Committee that they would put some improvements on the fast track, and, in fact, they delivered some improvements within a few days of the final Committee sitting. However, while we are happy about the speed of the Government's action, we are less happy about the substance of the changes, which are not adequate to meet the problem.

A large group of young people in this country are gratuitously exposed to poverty. The object of the new clause is very modest. What we seek to do is to extend the rates of income support and housing benefit for the over-25s to people under 25 in the following categories: those who are married; those who were previously in care and are not living with their parents or anyone acting in the place of their parents; those who are living away from the parental home, in accommodation that they entered as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement, to avoid physical or sexual abuse, or because of mental or physical handicap or illness; and those living away from the parental home because the parents cannot afford to support them as they are chronically sick or disabled, or because they are in prison or prohibited from entering the country. In short, these are the very young people who are married, who do not have a parental home to which they can safely return, and who therefore are obliged to pay for their own accommodation, whether as boarders or as householders.

At present, the existence of this group of people is recognised only to the extent of allowing those aged 16 to 17 in these categories to receive income support during the three months child benefit extension period.

As a result of the great pressures that have been exerted on the Government by the Opposition, many organisations, local authorities and hon. Members on both sides of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the small concessions announced by the Minister on 13 March came into effect. Again, these affect only those aged 16 to 17. From next July, if they happen to qualify for income support—which most of them do not—they will get the rate that is applicable to those between 18 and 24. In other words, they will receive £27.50 a week instead of only £20.80. That is still £7.40 below the normal rate of £34.90 payable to people 25 or older.

We must question the basis of having separate rates for young people and it is worth looking at the Government's justification for it. When they introduced the lower rate of income support for under-25s, the grounds were explained in the 1985 Green Paper, "Reform of Social Security". It stated: it is clear that at the age of 18 the majority of claimants are not fully independent and that the great majority of claimants above age 25 are … In 1983 nearly 90 per cent. of all claimants over 25 were getting the higher householder rate. By contrast the clear majority of claimants under 25 were living in someone else's household. The Government have concluded that an appropriate dividing line is age 25. The Minister nods. It is simplicity which the Government seek but, unfortunately, there are casualties of simplicity. The young people involved, like all other categories forced into simplified little boxes, do not fit neatly into them. The fact that many claimants under 25 were independent householders, whether through choice or necessity, was ignored altogether. All under-25s were to get a lower rate of benefit, regardless of their circumstances. Boarders under 25, as well as householders, were affected and until this month they were subjected to time limits which meant that their board and lodging charges were met for only a few weeks, after which they received only the basic under-25 income support rate. Under the new arrangements introduced this month, income support no longer covers board and lodging charges and the under-25 rate applies from the start of the claim. Despite the abolition of the time limits, board and lodging accommodation will remain out of reach of most claimants in this age group. They will no longer be able to afford it, even temporarily. Amendment No. 106, which is coupled with the new clause, deals with that.

The aim of new clause 6 is specifically modest. It aims to be practical and acceptable to the Government. It does not seek to abolish the under-25 benefit rate entirely, as we should like, although there is a strong case for doing that. It does not even seek to abolish it for all young people who are living independently, for which an even stronger case can be made. The new clause concentrates exclusively on those who set up home because they are married or do not have parental homes to which to return, even if they wish to do so. There is no justification for paying a lower rate of benefit to people in those circumstances simply because they are under 25.

We heard a great deal in Committee about care leavers. Each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority of them have no suitable parental home. Usually they have not lived in a parental home for many years. Research shows that about 70 per cent. of our young care leavers live on their own compared with less than 1 per cent. of the general population of the same age. Successive surveys also show that young people who have left care are over-represented among the homeless.

Centre Point in London estimated that 25 per cent. of the homeless that it looks after and knows of previously came from care. A Government report has suggested that the figure is 33 per cent. Several local authorities have recently noted that they are having to keep young people in care longer or, on occasions, readmitting them into care—sometimes into inappropriate placements.

There has been a deluge of submissions from local authorities and local authority associations pointing out that there is an increasing problem. Some social services departments are now reporting that young people over 16 are seeking their assistance because they cannot return home, often as a result of abuse within their families. Many of them have waited until their 16th birthdays to leave home. The social services departments are reporting that most of those youngsters were unknown to them previously.

9.45 pm

Since the changes were announced on 13 March, we have received dozens of examples from Barnardos, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the bodies representing local authorities. We have a wide choice of cases from which to choose. We could choose some spectacular ones or some sad ones, often the result of mistakes and inefficiency, where young people have been left without any income at all. I will not quote those cases, but I shall cite the cases of two youngsters from the prosperous area of Canterbury, who have come to the attention of a small charity called Rented Accommodation for Teenagers. RAFT has cited two cases and told us how they will be affected. The cases are typical of the position of young people and they show what will happen to them after July.

The first case is Wilfred, who is 17 years old. He was thrown out of home by his unemployed stepfather last year after months of hostility that had threatened to break up his mother's marriage. After sleeping on friends' floors he went to RAFT, because his stepfather was adamant that he could not return and Wilfred believed that it was not safe to do so. After eight months with a family, under the supervision of the charity, Wilfred has progressed well and is ready for a place of his own.

The charity is negotiating with the city council to manage a few small units of accommodation to sublet to young people, whom it will continue to support. The rent and rates bill is £36.41 a week and Wilfred receives a training allowance of £28.50. He gets £23.02 housing benefit, leaving him with £15.11 for total weekly outgoings. He pays his first £3 travel costs to work, so that leaves £12.11 for food, electricity and clothes.

Following the Minister's announcement on 13 March, Wilfred will look forward to receiving £15.66 from July. That is a totally inadequate amount to meet all his needs.

The second example that the charity provides is that of Tracy and, sadly, is a case that is typical of many others that we heard about in Committee and in a very moving press conference that was held afterwards.

Tracy was 16 years old when she went to RAFT as an alternative to going into care, which she did not want, partly because that would have disrupted her last year of school. She had alleged sexual assault by her father. She had been staying with a family, which was involved with the charity, while hoping to get back to her mother if her father was put in prison for the offence.

Following the transfer of board and lodging payments from the Department of Social Security to housing benefits at the city council, Tracy, being on a YTS placement, has £2.20 a week to pay for her fares to work, her clothing, her toiletries and her entertainment. As she has to pay the first £3 of her fares, she has minus 80p for all personal expenses. Her mother, who—again not unusually in these circumstances—blames Tracy in part for the family tensions, gives her no money.

Following the announcement on 13 March, from July Tracy should receive the princely sum of £2.50 a week for toiletries, for clothing and for entertainment.

Those figures have been verified. Those income levels are punitive to those young people who have been victims for long periods.

It is worth comparing the benefits received by those young people with the average pocket money enjoyed by children in families where everything is found, including food, accommodation and clothing. The average pocket money for a 12-year-old, according to a survey conducted by the Halifax building society, is £2.30 a week while for a 16-year-old it is £8.99. Therefore, the average 12-year-old receives in pocket money more than Tracy does after a full week's work on YTS. The new clause covers those who, in the Government's view, are essentially, necessarily and without any possible escape, living away from their parental homes.

The Government should consider the sobering example of what is happening in the United States—reference has already been made to that country. The changes that have taken place in Britain in the past few years parallel those that have occurred in the United States, which is suffering a peculiar anguish of 3 million tent people, homeless, itinerant street dwellers who have been rejected by the state and who are despised by society. Many of those people started life in care and many suffer from all kinds of inadequacies, especially from forms of mental illness. President Bush has said that they represent the nation's shame. There are 3 million of them. They are the walking wounded, the casualties of a social security system that has been wrecked by the same mean-spirited forces of malice and ignorance and neglect that have corrupted the judgment of the Government. Visitors to the United States ask how unimaginable wealth can live as a close neighbour to such poverty.

Earlier today, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) asked what would happen if someone from another planet came to study our social security system. A year ago someone from another world, the Third world, came to London. Mother Theresa wept on the streets of our capital. In a society where the average family is as rich, or has command over as many resources, as a Tudor monarch, we consciously fail our more susceptible young people. They are the very people who have been spurned by their parents from early childhood, as well as those who have endured the long, hideous nightmare of parental abuse. From birth, many of them have been cheated by nature or short-changed by life. They are the embittered, bewildered, frightened victims of society who deserve better than the Hobson's choice that we give them of poverty, or drugs, begging, crime and prostitution.

I appeal to the Government and to the House to listen to the voices of good people who are crying out to us to stop adding to the physical and emotional turmoil of adolescence the cruel, ugly and unnecessary burden of destitution.

Mr. Kirkwood

I support the new clause that has been ably moved by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 106 which stands in my name and which deals with a slightly different but related topic—the financial plight of people who must live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The amendment seeks to provide a special level of income support for people living in such accommodation and similar lodgings. In consultation with housing pressure groups, particularly Shelter, I am extremely worried that the changes for boarders introduced a fortnight ago on 10 April could have a potentially disastrous effect on the health and well-being of homeless families.

The changes effectively abolish the so-called "eating out" allowances which families in bed-and-breakfast have relied upon to supplement their incomes. Many families in such accommodation have totally inadequate cooking facilities and are forced to exist on take-away food which, as we all know, is extremely expensive.

It is right that the House should spend some time considering the changes with a view to putting right some of the anticipated difficulties before they cause more trouble than they already have. On 10 April, housing costs for boarders—those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, hotels, in lodgings and in so-called "supportive lodgings"—were switched away from income support to housing benefit. Residents of hostel accommodation will he transferred to that new regime in October.

These changes have been designed to rationalise the situation and to place boarders on the same footing as people in self-contained and permanent accommodation. Until April and under the old system boarders received a higher rate of income support, including a payment for meals or the eating out allowance to which I referred earlier. That was designed to compensate for the lack of proper cooking facilities in many bed-and-breakfast establishments. Eating out allowances have now been abolished, so boarders receive the same rates of income support and personal allowances as all other claimants and they may also have to meet certain amenity charges out of their own income support that are not catered for by housing benefits.

It is worth considering the definition of "boarder". For social security purposes, the term "boarder" is not related to security of tenure or to the occupation of any particular type of accommodation. For example, there are circumstances in which an assured or an assured shorthold English tenant, as well as licensees, can all be considered as boarders and accordingly get support. Income support regulations state that a boarder is a person who does not live with a close relative and pays an exclusive charge for accommodation and some meals or lives in a hotel, guest house, lodging house or similar establishment. Essentially the test is commercial.

Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)

Is the hon. Gentleman reading a brief?

Mr. Kirkwood

The hon. Gentleman says that I am reading a brief. I am reading very carefully the representations put forward by Shelter because they are technical and difficult to understand. I make no apology for doing that, because these changes will have serious financial effects. Many people have to live in this sort of accommodation. I am therefore anxious for the House to hear about the details of the old system and of the new system.

Mr. Corbyn

Would it not be helpful for Conservative Members who are making half-baked remarks to read the details of the Bill so that they might realise how horrific it is for young people who are seeking to live independently rather than being put in danger of risk by this proposal?

Mr. Kirkwood

I believe that that would be a considerable advance, but I do not think it is likely to happen. I was saying that the test of who and who is not a boarder is essentially commercial. Two of the clauses in my proposed amendment No. 106 seek to rearrange the definition of a boarder. I refer particularly to the definition of "supportive lodgings". As I can find no definition of that term in the regulations, I should be obliged if the Minister of State could supply information on that. For example, the Department of Social Security intends to embrace adult care placements. The case of someone placed with an ordinary family which provides a degree of personal care and assistance is to be included in that category. I do not believe that such schemes have to be registered by the local authorities, and I am worried about this aspect. I may be wrong, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.

The changes that affect people's incomes which were introduced on 10 April altered the previous situation which allowed a weekly income support payment to be paid to a boarder made up of three basic elements: an accommodation charge; a meals eating out allowance; and a personal allowance. Under the old system, the accommodation charge covered the weekly cost of board and lodgings. The meals allowance covered the cost of extra meals not included in the weekly charges, and that was made up either of the cost of the meals or the daily charges set out—£1.10 for breakfast, £1.55 for lunch, and £1.55 for an evening meal. A total weekly allowance, excluding breakfast, amounted to £21.70. That is a substantial sum on which people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation substantially relied.

In addition, there are personal allowances. That for a single person is £10.30, and that was doubled for a couple and less for dependent children. Any person who satisfied the conditions for income support premium would have received the full sum of £11.50 for a personal allowance. The personal allowances for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation were smaller.

On top of that there were ceilings on board and lodging charges and accommodation charge and meals allowance were subject to regional maximums. In my constituency, it was £55 and in London it is £70 for a single person. The sums for those under 25 were subject to time limits and that caused all sorts of legal difficulties and the Government kept having to change the rules of the game. Boarders were not eligible to receive additional income support payments.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Kirkwood

From 10 April, boarders will receive an income support personal allowance and housing benefit. That will lead to a substantial drop in income for most boarders, particularly homeless families in bed and breakfast. Under income support, personal allowances are flat rate and are paid regardless of differences in personal circumstances. The premiums will be paid where appropriate, but will not be adequate to compensate for the loss of eating out allowance. Income could be further reduced if families are expected to pay any immediate amenity charges to their hotel.

The new rate of income support personal allowance is £20.80 for a single person aged under 18. There are higher rates for those between 18 and 24 and a rate of £34.90 for those aged 25 or over. The lone parent is expected to live on £20.80, a couple both aged under 18 on £41.60 and a couple with at least one over-l8-year-old £54.80, with additions for children or young people.

I understand that the time limit for boarders under 25 has been abolished. Income support changes are severe enough but, taken together with housing benefit changes, they are worse. There are two kinds of housing benefit changes. First, the rent allowance will be applied to private or housing association tenants and there will be different rent rebates for council tenants. Housing benefit will cover only eligible rent and rates, so that some charges included in rents will be excluded when calculating benefit. These charges must be met from the weekly income support. As if these housing benefit changes were not enough, the ineligible charges also include 20 per cent. poll tax charges and 20 per cent. general rate and water rate charges.

These changes in the housing benefit allowances and rebates will have a severe effect. In addition, local authorities must make weekly deductions for meals when paying rent allowances or rebates. For members of the household aged over 16, deductions of £12.50 have to be made. For those aged under 16, the deduction is £6.25. Is addition, there are fuel deductions. If one room is occupied, £4.20 has to be deducted for heating, hot water and lighting, and for more than one room the sum is £7. In addition, there are other services, the most common being those for cleaning and laundry, for which deductions will be made.

When we examine how the changes will affect the income of boarders, we have to examine the effect that the changes will have when the boarders are split into those who are receiving either rent allowances or rent rebates. In the former group, claimants who move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation after 10 April will be referred to the rent officer, who will assess whether they are paying an unreasonably high rent for housing benefit subsidy purposes and also whether the accommodation is too large.

The space standards applied by rent officers are fairly restrictive—children of the same sex may have to share a bedroom. Local authorities will receive no subsidy for housing benefit paid out above the rent officer's assessment. Some local authorities will therefore be unable or will refuse to pay housing benefit on rent at that level, and boarders will be left to meet the difference themselves. I understand that a 50 per cent. subsidy is payable in some circumstances when some of the housing benefit regulations apply.

Rent rebate claimants will not be referred to the rent officer in that way. It must be noted that the DSS has confirmed that housing benefit claims from homeless families that are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities will legally be treated as rent rebates. That is to say that, as with council tenants, rents will be paid by homeless families to a local authority, which will be entitled to make a reasonable charge for accommodation.

These cases cannot be referred to the rent officer as can those involving private tenants, but the DSS has announced that subsidy limits are to be imposed by using the rent threshold limits which were brought into force in 1988. They will continue to apply to tenancies which commence before this April. When a local authority places a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation outside its area, the threshold that applies is that of the placing authority. Authorities will receive maximum subsidies up to the rent threshold and thereafter only a 25 per cent. subsidy.

Sir William Clark

rose—

Mr. Kirkwood

The hon. Gentleman need not bother to interrupt to say that I am reading and to complain. He can make his own speech. I make absolutely no apology for ensuring that some of the details of these changes are put on the record accurately.

Sir William Clark

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of the House that, although a Back Bencher can refer to notes, he should not read his speech verbatim? The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for some time and he has been reading. Has the tradition been changed?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no Standing Order that governs speeches. I have noticed that the hon, Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has been making copious use of his notes which, according to tradition, is not done in the House. If, however, he insists on making copious use of his notes, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion.

Mr. Kirkwood

Of course I shall respond to that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have three other points to make. I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) will listen carefully.

A couple with two children—I am reading, carefully —aged nine and seven will lose £31.90 a week as a result of the changes of a fortnight ago. Secondly, a couple with four children aged three, seven, 11 and 12 will lose £51.20 —carefully read from the notes—and, thirdly, a person aged 19 will lose £4.60 a week under the new system. That also is carefully read from the notes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the effect that the changes will have on such people.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich)

I want to be brief. The case for new clause 6 and amendment No. 106 has been made very eloquently.

Many young people aged 16 and 17, through no fault of their own, cannot live with their parents, because they do not have parents, because they have parents who have not acknowledged them for many years or because they have been rejected by a step-parent on remarriage. An increasing number of marriages break down. Remarriages take place and young people are rejected by step-parents. Very often, the dominant male insists that a young person leaves home. Such young people are very vulnerable.

I read the figures very carefully and found them quite convincing. Many young people simply do not have enough to live on. They do not have enough to feed themselves and they certainly do not have enough to clothe themselves or buy their own toiletries. Let us not mince words. Young people, particularly girls, have to provide certain essential toiletries. We are not talking about perfume behind the ears, although I believe that 16 to 17-year-olds are entitled to a little luxury.

As the mother of teenage children, I know how much they spend on hamburgers, tapes and detailed accessories when their food, accommodation, hot water and home comforts are provided. We have to examine seriously the amounts of money being made available to young people. I welcome the changes which have already been made, but, looking carefully at case studies which have been sent to us by various responsible bodies, we have to acknowledge that young people will be short of basic essentials, including food. Unless we do something, those young people will get into serious trouble. They will have to turn to crime or prostitution to make ends meet. If they go to work, on the amount that they receive at present, they will not have enough money to pay their fares for the whole week, they will become poor employees and stand to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. We have to take the matter very seriously. It is our duty to address the situation and remedy the financial problems faced by many young people.

Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)

I shall not read copiously from my notes because for most of the time I cannot read my own handwriting. I have also put my finger on my glasses and cannot see out of them.

We are discussing a very serious subject, which I am sure most hon. Members have encountered in their surgery—the most vulnerable group of people in Britain today. To say that those young people have homes, accommodation or other support is nonsense. For any Administration to ignore the experience that has been drawn to their attention in the past few years, and the fact that those young people are vulnerable and independent in the sense that they are living in isolation and then to assume that they can get care, attention and resources from other sources is tantamount to criminality.

All right hon. and hon. Members must at some time have come face to face with cases which have been created by recent legislation. People say that the poor are with us all the time. Of course they are, but, unfortunately, various social security Bills in the past few years have created a new poverty for young people. All the voluntary groups and most local authorities have given chapter and verse to the suffering that continues today. Sometimes accommodation can be found. I am sure that we have all had cases for whom we have been delighted to find accommodation. At one time that would have been the end of the problem, but nowadays it is only the start. Often, those people are provided with four walls, a roof and a door, but nothing else. Many single payments have been abolished and other resources are no longer available.

We have all heard reports about key money, deposits and so on. In my constituency this morning a young man told me that he had found accommodation—I will check this with the Minister in writing—but that even the electricity board is asking for a deposit because he has never before been registered as a consumer and it wants some form of guarantee. That is yet another burden for people who are already in a mess.

10.15 pm

It is wrong to assume that, because of their age, young people can find income or resources from some other source. I do not think that new clause 6 goes far enough, but obviously we will support it. Whether young or old, people living independently and with no resources should receive equal treatment. Whether one is 16 or 30, the price of food and electricity is the same. To assume that for some strange reason a young person who has even less experience of how to manage can make do with fewer resources is beyond comprehension. In fact, it should be the other way round. Young people with no experience need extra support. They should not be fined or penalised because of their age.

There is a case in my constituency—I shall not dwell on it—of a 16 or 17-year-old girl who is pregnant. She was found accommodation—it is not very good, but it is better than nothing. Her general practitioner and the doctor dealing with her at the hospital insisted that she leave her previous house because she had been subjected to sexual abuse year after year. It is an impossible situation. However, just removing that young person from that house does not solve her problems. If anything, it creates more problems. Because of her young age, she does not qualify for the benefits that older people would receive automatically.

Last Wednesday, thanks to the Methodist Church, I had the privilege—if that is the right term—of visiting some London hostels. It was traumatic in many ways. The Methodist Church is doing a good job within its limitations. It wanted Members of Parliament from all parties to visit the hostels and I spent most of my time in Lambeth. Despite the love and care that the ordinary authorities and charitable organisations provide, there is no way that they can resolve all the problems. They are basically keeping the young people's heads just above water. The legislation is making matters worse. The plight of those people is desperate and I am sure that anyone who is aware of it, no matter how hard-hearted they may be, must be touched by it. They are the most vulnerable people in our society.

No one can deny that, although the caring services do a good job for such people, they do not have the necessary resources and should not have the ultimate responsibility. The legislation passed by the Government has been partly responsible for the problems and only the Government can change that. New clause 6 attempts to go some way along that road, but not as far as most of us would like. It is an extremely modest clause and I hope that the Government will read, understand and accept it. They should listen not just to me and my colleagues but to the voluntary organisations and other groups that have been pleading for months for some change which will help those in desperate need. We cannot justify passing legislation that allows young people to continue to exist in a living hell.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

It is significant that all we heard from Conservative Members was a point of pedantry rather than anything to do with the substance of these serious matters.

I support new clause 6, which was eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I shall focus especially on the problems faced by 16 and 17-year-olds who have been robbed of every penny of income by the Government.

Mr. Favell

I have never heard so much rubbish. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a 16 or 17-year-old should be able to live in semi-luxury without training or trying to find a job? The Opposition, by encouraging this idleness, are not doing young people any favours whatever.

Mr. Wilson

I am delighted that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am reminded of the old maxim, "All you expect from a pig is a grunt." The hon. Gentleman eloquently gave the true views of Tory Members, and I hope that in the days and weeks before the county council elections his words will be well trailed around England and Wales. There spoke the true voice of Toryism. We shall hear later from the Minister for Social Security, the polite face of Toryism. It will be interesting to see whether he dissociates himself from those remarks. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister for Social Security, who trails his wet reputation round the dinner tables of Kensington and Chelsea, shares his hon. Friend's views of 16 and 17-year-olds living in semi-luxury.

The Government have made a modest retreat on the treatment of some 16 and 17-year-olds. When I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate last December there was no evidence of any Government awareness of the need to retreat. On the contrary, the strong impression given by the Minister was that he was doing the 16 and 17-year-olds from whom he had robbed every penny of income a favour. He told the House that there was nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits. We were not talking then, and we are not now, about the mass of youngsters. By national standards, we are talking of relatively few youngsters. It is more debilitating for 16 and 17-year-old youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world to have no state benefit, no job, no training and not a penny of legal income on which to depend than a few pathetic pounds of state benefit on which to subsist.

The philanthropist Minister, who was saying that he was doing youngsters a favour, continued: I can think of no greater danger than for young people to be attracted to leave home and have the opportunity to live on state benefits and come into some sort of life in inner London or any of our other big cities and be exposed to the dangers, moral and otherwise, that can confront them. The Minister is a positive salvationist, but I tell him that there is one bigger danger than having to live on state benefit in inner-London facing moral dangers—to live on no state benefit in inner-London or other big cities facing moral dangers.

Mr. Favell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson

Get out of my road. Very well, I give way.

Mr. Favell

Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that an able-bodied person of 16 or 17 cannot get a job in central London? I could find that person a job within five minutes if he really wanted one.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Another little gem.

Mr. Wilson

Another little gem. It is on the record.

Mr. Battle

Conservative Members seem to think that youngsters have a life of semi-luxury on the streets of London. My hon. Friend may care to remind the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) of what happens. I bumped into a youngster and asked him why he was sleeping out in London. He said that he had a job but one reason why he had to live out was that he could not even raise the deposit to rent a flat. He had to work for eight weeks before he could get the income to rent a flat. Perhaps Conservative Members do not reflect on what is happening in our society.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend's point is well taken.

On 5 December the Minister went on very much in the same vein as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).

He declared: All that young people have lost as a result of the implementation of the new arrangements is the option of doing nothing at the public's expense."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 146–47.] That was and is a lie of Goebbelian proportions. In many parts of the country there is no option of work or training. The youngsters who have been robbed of every penny of their income and forced into dire circumstances have been treated callously. It is almost beyond belief that any society could treat its youngest and most vulnerable members in that way as they enter the adult world.

The consequences are all around us to be seen. Unfortunately, we cannot get statistics. Part of the Government's trick is that by depriving youngsters of a legal existence and making them ineligible for benefit, those people no longer have to be counted. It is a double benefit from the Government's point of view. Tens of thousands of youngsters who lost all entitlement to income when these measures were introduced no longer feature in the unemployment count. Every month we hear that unemployment has fallen by so many thousands, but, especially when there is a new wave of school leavers, the figures include many youngsters who have lost entitlement to benefit because they are 16 or 17. The Minister is responsible for that.

What is the position of 16 or 17-year-olds who find themselves without a penny of income? They seek advice, thinking that surely this cannot happen to them. Nine times out of 10, social security offices and others tell them that because they are 16 or 17 they have no means of appeal and no entitlement. In rare cases they are given the correct advice, which is that any 16 or 17-year-old can appeal on the ground of severe hardship. They will not normally get that advice from the offices for which the Minister is responsible. Those youngsters are presented with a 15-page form to fill in. I know of several youngsters who have made eloquent testimony of their circumstances and have described the poverty, misery and hopelessness in which they live, but, because they have failed to use the magic words "severe hardship", their applications are automatically rejected. That is a splendid trick for the Minister to pull on these 16 and 17-year-olds. Even if youngsters get through that 15-page form, the likelihood of their getting beyond that form is remote. The Government cynically count on that.

I urge all 16 and 17-year-olds who have been robbed by the Minister of every penny of their legal income to get the necessary information to lodge appeals on the ground of severe hardship. When, for some spurious reason, their appeals are turned down, as they will be, they should seek legal advice to challenge the grounds on which the decision was taken. Perhaps the trick can be turned back on the Minister: because those youngsters have been left without a penny of legal income, by definition they will qualify for legal aid. They should take their case to the courts and large numbers should challenge the Minister on his Department's actions. I hope that that piece of practical advice will go out to 16 and 17-year-olds.

10.30 pm

The vast majority of Conservative Members, unaware of what is happening in large parts of the areas that they represent and among large social groupings in those areas, will be unaware, too, of cases that have arisen. I want to cite one example from my constituency, to make the Minister aware of what his handiwork has meant in human terms. It concerns a 16-year-old who left school last August. He lived—as many do—in very poor circumstances. He came from a low-income, single-parent family struggling to make ends meet. He lived in an area in which there are no YTS places and no pretence of YTS places so when the bridging allowance ran out he was not offered a YTS place, but he was disqualified from benefit. He became one of the tens of thousands of youngsters in Britain who are left without a penny of income.

After being disqualified from benefits, he made a mistake. The House will agree that 16-year-olds sometimes make mistakes and that they should pay for them with rather less harsh penalties than my constituent paid. When 16-year-olds at public school make mistakes, they are called jolly japes. This lad's mistake was to pilfer from his mother's purse. Perhaps 16-year-olds with no money and no access to money sometimes do things like that. He was put out of his family home in the extreme circumstances that I have described. He then lived rough—[Interruption.] I hear sniggers from the Tory Benches. He lived rough for several weeks—in hedgerows and in haylofts.

He became involved with a family of experienced criminals. He was then used, Fagin-like, to steal for his keep. That was in December and January. A few weeks ago, he was united with his mother and is back in the family home, still without a penny of income. He has now paid the price for his activities in December and January: he was taken to court and sentenced to three months' detention for the petty thieving offences from which, as the court recognised, he gained no personal benefit. He stole for his keep because he had no money and had no home. It was the Government who put him in that position.

All of that was utterly predictable. Any fool can see —and the Minister can see—that if one condemns tens of thousands of youngsters to living without a penny of income, many of them will, as night follows day, find themselves in circumstances that are a threat to their morals and to their well-being, but, above all, to the possibility of their ever having a decent life.

In the name of any humanity that may exist in Britain, give us an assurance tonight that no 16 or 17-year-old will be left in the streets or the hedgerows or the haylofts without a penny of income.

Mr. Corbyn

Tonight in London it is an ordinary wet miserable night. Earlier this evening I went to a meeting at the London School of Economics. On my way back, I counted the number of people getting ready to spend the night on the pavement in Arundel place, just in sight of the Savoy hotel, where a room costs £400 a night. Just before 9 o'clock there were already 12 people getting ready to spend the night in sight of the Savoy and just near the law courts.

When I go home there will be more than a dozen people begging for money outside Finsbury Park station near to where I live. There will be young people begging so that they can exist in this city.

Tomorrow, at a convent near my home, a pathetic stream of half a dozen or a dozen—it is sometimes more —will be asking the nuns for a cup of tea and a piece of bread and butter. That is a normal night and a normal day in this city at this time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Savoy hotel. Some years ago, I was the chairman of a welfare committee in Camden. As such, I was in charge of a common lodging house in Parker street. The deputy head chef of the Savoy was one who went there from choice. He could certainly have chosen to go elsewhere.

Mr. Corbyn

I am not quite sure what that intervention adds to the sum total of human knowledge. The hon. Lady was not in her place earlier in the discussion. I was not talking about the chef at the Savoy. I was making a comparison between the poor people who sleep in the streets and the people who walk past them to spend £400 for one night in the Savoy hotel. If the hon. Lady does not understand the difference between what I was saying and what she is thinking, heaven help us all.

We have an appalling problem of homelessness and destitution among young people in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke about the plight of young people being forced into crime and all sorts of indignities to make ends meet. That is happening all the time in London. They are young people—some from London, some from outside London, some from institutions, and some from what one would call normal family homes. Eventually, the disputes with parents become worse and worse, because the flat is overcrowded, and because a younger child wants the bedroom. All the pressures and tensions build up, and we end up with young people out on the streets.

If they are out on the streets, sleeping rough and looking dishevelled, it is difficult for them to get a job. It is difficult to get a job if they have no address and they cannot say where they live in the first place. They get into a cycle of despair. The ways out of that cycle of despair are often crime, drugs, prostitution, and so on. That is happening now in this city. Complacent Conservative Members choose to ignore it, to wish it away, and to decide that it is the problem of a few feckless youths who are trying to fiddle the social security system. They are creating a crisis of unimaginable proportions.

If Conservative Members bother tonight to go to Waterloo station or Charing Cross and to walk around, they will not find that only old tramps sleep there. Often quite young people are there. They should go to Crisis at Christmas. They will find that every year a growing proportion of people there are under the age of 25. These are signs of a real crisis in our society.

What is the Government's response? They say that under 25-year-olds should be partly dependent on their parents and that, if they are trying to live independently, they should get less than those over the age of 25. The same Government are making large cuts by closing long-stay institutions of various sorts. In some ways, some of us welcome closures of long-stay institutions, provided that they are compensated for by real spending on real community care that gives real support, and provided that we do not ignore people and leave them to try to fend for themselves, often in a vulnerable situation.

Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, last year, Centrepoint, a charity in Soho in London, said that its research showed that, each year. 30,000 young people from the north of England come to London simply because there are no jobs in the north? They are trapped into lower-paid jobs in London where they cannot pay for their accommodation.

Mr. Corbyn

My hon. Friend made a valid and correct point. I and many other London hon. Members regularly meet young people in our surgeries. They have been unable to get jobs in the north or other parts of the country—not through any fault or lack of effort on their part. Often, they have tried hard at school and at any educational opportunities that are offered to them.

Young people cannot get work so, not unreasonably, they come to London. Even if they can find jobs, which is difficult, they cannot find anywhere to live. They then go to Centrepoint where they are told that there are thousands like them and they cannot be helped. They traipse around advice bureaux, crisis centres and Members' surgeries. At every turn they are told "No".

All the London local authorities have appalling housing crises. On average every London borough has a waiting list of between 5,000 and 10,000. Those young people are not eligible to be rehoused under the homeless persons legislation unless they can be judged to be totally vulnerable, which many of them are. It is often claimed that they are intentionally homeless when they seek rehousing. Those young people either have to go back home to a part of the country where there is no work and where the family is often in such a tight spot that it cannot cope with the young person's return, or they end up trying to fend for themselves on the streets of London.

This Government are creating a generation of criminals by forcing people into crime because of the social conditions that prevail in this country. Conservative Members should consider what they are doing in relation to this particularly nasty piece of social security legislation which builds on something which was even nastier two years ago.

There is no shortage of money in this country. There is no shortage of resources to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads and that every unemployed and homeless person has sufficient income to keep body and soul together. There is a political will not to provide it. That is the problem.

With regard to independent living, the 1985 Green Paper entitled "Reform of Social Security" states: it is clear that at the age of 18 the majority of claimants are not fully independent and that the great majority of claimants above the age 25 are…In 1983 nearly 90 per cent. of all claimants over 25 were getting the higher household rate. By contrast the clear majority of claimants under 25 were living in someone else's household. The Government have concluded that an appropriate dividing line is age 25. If ever there were a self-fulfilling prophecy that is it. Of course the majority of young people are living in someone else's household—they cannot afford to live anywhere else. Sometimes they are more or less sleeping on floors. The Government have decided that the age of 25 should represent entitlement to a lower benefit level than that available to those over 25.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). The new clause is limited because it does not go as far as I would like. There should be equality of payment for all people adjudged to be living independently, whether they be over 25 or under.

I conclude by considering the question of income support for young people aged 19 who are trying to complete secondary education, but are estranged from their parents and receive no income support and are therefore unable to continue their education.

I have received a letter from the Minister about a constituent of mine whose name I will not refer to because that would be unfair to her. The Minister wrote: Thank you for your letter about…a nineteen year old student estranged from her parents and is no longer entitled to Income Support. I sympathise with her position but I am afraid that extra-statutory payments can be made only where claimants are deprived of all or part of their entitlement in a way not foreseen or intended when the law was drawn up. This is not the case here, so a payment would not be in order. Of course it could not have been foreseen when the law was drawn up that this particular young person would reach such a pass in her relationship with her parents that they would throw her out. However, it falls on the social security system to support her now that she has been thrown out, to allow her to complete her education and develop her abilities to the full. The same does not apply to the children of very wealthy parents who do not get thrown out. They do not get into those disputes or have those problems. They have a family safety-net. There is no such safety-net for people like my constituent.

I hope that for once the House will recognise that many of the social problems facing young people today have been created by the social security legislation which deliberately ignores them. I hope that hon. Members will at least support the new clause as going some way towards alleviating the misery of those young people as it gives them the support, resources and recognition by society that they crave and which we should give them.

10.45 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

Until I heard the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) I had not intended to contribute to this debate. The hon. Gentleman's inspired prejudice will have touched many hon. Members very deeply—in such a way, indeed, that they may have second thoughts about their intentions in relation to the new clause.

The acid test of the maturity of any society in the world is the way in which it looks after those who are most vulnerable—by definition, surely, the aged and those who are not fully come of age. Since time began, there has never been a decade—indeed, there has never been a century —when young people did not find themselves in the type of situation that hon. Members have cited tonight. I will not tabulate cases; suffice it is say that we can all cast our minds back to the story of the prodigal son, from which there is a lesson to be learnt. The choice facing that father was whether to allow his son to continue on the prodigal road or to bring him back into society by adopting a humanitarian attitude such as we are not seeing here tonight.

It is a characteristic not of this generation or of this decade, but of the human condition, that young people will always find themselves in a position of vulnerability, wanting to assert their independence. There are three groups of such young people. First, there are those who have to leave home because of various circumstances there, some of which have been mentioned by hon. Members—child abuse, alienation from parents, or whatever. In any case, it is imperative that they leave home because they have no control over the circumstances. Very often young people, in order to protect what society cannot protect for them, find themselves with no alternative to taking steps that will make them homeless. Society owes a debt to those young people. They are entitled to the protection of society because they are at risk, and if society does not give them that protection it is demonstrating the callousness that this legislation represents.

The second vulnerable group of young people are those who wish to assert their independence. I am sure that there is not in this House a parent who has not seen a child take the tent into the garden to show that he can stand on his own feet. Such people will come back into society if society helps them back. But they are at a crossroads; they can either turn towards the type of life that hon. Members have illustrated, or return to society, more mature from the experience of having lived away from home.

The third vulnerable group must surely be those who are physically, emotionally or psychologically scarred by experiences at school, within the family, or otherwise in their own environment. We cannot allow those people to go unaided. Staying in their situation of vulnerability can only lead to further problems.

I realise that in the cause of people like the hon. Member for Stockport I will not be able to appeal to humanitarian considerations, so perhaps I should appeal to the calculating machines that sometimes masquerade as their minds. What is the net cost of this attitude? What is the cost of recycling the problems from one decade to the next? What is the cost in terms of keeping people in prison and other institutions, of keeping people on the verge between being law-abiding citizens and being law breakers? The net cost of such an approach is quantifiable and is something that the hon. Member for Stockport might understand.

The recycling effect is very serious indeed—not just for the young people, not just for others affected by their lives, not just for the parents, not just for the immediate environment, but for the whole of society, which adopts the faulty premise that if people are left on the dunghill the height of the dunghill will somehow be lessened.

A serious principle is at stake. It is based on the choice of the type of society that we want to create and sustain. Is it a society which will honour its commitments and responsibility to the most vulnerable or one that will work on a false premise? There is a false premise in the legislation. It is the notion that leaving people to stand on their own two feet, cold baths, bodily exercise and a little starvation will put the matter right. It does not. We have centuries of experience to show that it does not. It simply exacerbates the problem and recycles the difficulties that our young people are facing now.

Those young people in every city and in rural areas could well be guided into productive lives if a humanitarian approach were adopted by the caring services and in this legislation. If we have this cold, callous heartlessness in our legislation, it must reflect a cold, callous heartlessness in our legislators. We are the legislators. Is that the type of condition that we want to recycle for further generations?

Mr. Favell

I shall be brief, but I must reply to that attack.

I have nothing against young people standing on their own two feet. My objection is to encouraging young people to stand on the state's two feet. That is precisely what the Opposition have been trying to encourage for years. For a long time the Labour party encouraged young people to think that they could leave school at 16, go immediately into accommodation provided by the state and live on the state, rather than look for a job or even train for one. That was not in the long-term interests of young people.

I remember early after my election a lady coming to my surgery and saying, "Mr. Favell, I have a daughter of 16. She is being encouraged into idleness and immorality by the state. She has left a perfectly good home and set up home with a young man who is also 16. She is living in luxury and has no intention of getting a job. What is the state doing?" I have heard that story over and over again. I am glad that the Government have grasped the nettle and are insisting that young people find a job, if possible, and are not encouraged to think that they can live on the state for ever and a day.

In many areas young women have illegitimate children and those children are condemned to the same cycle of deprivation as their mothers. That should be discouraged. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is doing exactly the right thing in discouraging such behaviour.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

I must take issue with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He cited the parable of the prodigal son, but he seemed to get it on its head. The prodigal son left with plenty of capital, blew the lot and went back to the bosom of his family where he was welcomed back. He certainly did not have the opportunity to live on state benefits when he was away from home.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seek to ensure that, whatever changes we make in the provision for young people, the most vulnerable are given special protection. I hope that I can persuade the House that that is exactly what the Government are doing. I am absolutely certain —I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell)—that the state should not be seen to encourage or give a perverse incentive to young people to leave home.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Disgraceful.

Mr. Scott

Perhaps the hon. Lady would allow me to develop the argument before she decides whether what I shall say is disgraceful. I represent part of London which under Conservative and Labour Governments has seen the problems of young people. They come to London and chance their luck, and I have seen the dangers and difficulties with which they can be confronted.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Does the Minister ever ask why those children come to London? It was clear from a survey that I carried out on homosexuality and on the use of small boys for male prostitution that many of those children were driven out of existing homes by the conditions and the abuses that they there suffered. Will the Minister not use as an excuse the suggestion that all those who come to London are driven here by some extraordinary greed for the future? Will he not accept that many of them are driven out by things that none of us would accept for our children or for anyone else's?

Mr. Scott

I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House that we have taken special account of young people who find themselves in the situation that the hon. Lady has described.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not speak to the new clause, but launched into a violent attack on the broad thrust of the Government's policy for 16 and 17-year-olds. I do not blame him for doing that, but I am confident that the broad thrust of the Government's policy is right. Many of his arguments during his passionate address to the House were based on emotion and prejudice rather than on the facts of the case. He talked about the lack of places on YTS. At the end of February there were virtually 144,000 unfilled places on YTS throughout the country, and an excess of places over demand in every region.

Mr. Wilson

Will the Minister accept that in February, in the Training Agency area which I represent, there were three times as many people seeking YTS places as there were places?

Mr. Scott

There was an excess of places in the region as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the figures, he will receive a considered response.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spoke as though young people, when they asked for consideration under the severe hardship provisions, were inevitably turned down. From 12 September 1988—when the new system came into existence—up to 21 April, there were 7,464 decisions on severe hardship, and 4,839 of those were favourable, which is some 65 per cent. Those decisions are, therefore, taken on a fair and rational basis.

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Mr. Scott

The hon. Gentleman had his say. He gave the impresson that young people who came forward and pleaded severe hardship inevitably had their cases rejected out of hand. That is not true. Some two thirds of those who came forward were given a favourable decision.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister has confirmed my point with his figures, because 7,000 odd is a small number of young people to have claimed on grounds of severe hardship. Will the Minister join me in encouraging every 16 and 17-year-old who has had benefit taken away from him and who has been left with no means of income to appeal on grounds of severe hardship? If a person has no income, potentially he or she has severe hardship. In particular, will the Minister give a directive to every DSS office that in no circumstances must it tell or lead those youngsters to believe that they are disqualified from income support merely on the ground that they are 16 or 17-years-old?

Mr. Scott

Every 16 or 17-year-old is guaranteed the offer of a place on the youth training scheme. It is possible that some people, who have to live independently, may need to be considered under the severe hardship provisions. In those circumstances, I believe that it is right that we should look with compassion and sympathy at the circumstances that confront them. Two thirds of those who have come forward and who have asked for consideration have had a favourable response.

I am grateful for the Opposition's guarded welcome for the concessions for treating 16 and 17-year-olds that I was recently able to announce. The effect of the new clause is to give 16 and 17-year-olds who have no parents or who for a prescribed list of reasons are unable to live at home the over-25s rate of income support. The difference between us is not the treatment that should be accorded to those people, but the level of benefit to which they should be entitled. I believe that our list accords closely to the list that the hon. Member for Newport, West has in mind. Should such youngsters get the 18 to 24-year-olds rate of benefit or should they get the rate for those aged 25 and older? I shall advance a number of reasons why we should stay where we are in this regard.

First, we have only recently introduced the concessions that I was able to announce—[interruption.] When we introduced the reforms in April 1988 I undertook that we would carefully monitor their effect. One result of the monitoring has been the concessions that I have announced. We should wait to see how those concessions work out. I believe that the 18 to 24-year rate is appropriate for the youngsters in question.

Under-25s on income support get the personal allowance, £27.40. They also get housing benefit, 100 per cent. of their rent and 80 per cent. of their rates. I accept that, having paid their housing costs, they are left with an amount that is not generous. I believe that it is adequate and I do not want to reach the situation where we restore the perverse incentive that existed before April 1988 for young people to leave home and seek to live independently when the vast majority of them should be given every encouragement to remain with their families.

Mr. Bill Michie

What is the difference between someone under-25 and someone over-25? The Government recognise that, at the age of 18, when called upon, one can don a uniform and die for one's country. For some strange reason, however, the Government do not recognise that person as an adult with the same problems as those over-25.

Mr. Scott

I believe that people aged 16 and 17 are more vulnerable and, as far as we can encourage them to do anything, they should be encouraged to stay within the bosom of their family.

Mr. Battle

Some cannot stay.

Mr. Scott

If they cannot, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that special arrangements are made for them.

There is a difference between the under-25s and the over-25s not least in their earning capacity. Young people under-25 earn a great deal less than those over-25 and most live in other people's households rather than independently. I do not want to return to the situation where we must reintroduce the complexities and difficulties of the householder test that existed before April 1988.

I accept that the arrangements that are made are not generous, but I believe that they are sufficient. We shall extend the provisions that are made during the child benefit extension period to include those who are genuinely estranged from their families. At the end of that period it will be possible, virtually automatic, for such cases to be considered under the severe hardship provisions should a youngster say that he still needs that help. It is right that that should happen.

We shall, of course, continue to monitor the impact of our changes. Such monitoring is not a one-off exercise but a continuing process. I pay warm tribute to the voluntary organisations which have helped to monitor the changes and which have given considered judgments about the cases they have identified. In part they led us to make the changes that we have announced.

The hon. Member for Newport, West raised the cases of Wilfred and Tracy, which were highlighted by the National Childrens Bureau. The House knows that I never comment in detail on the Floor of the House on individual cases that are brought forward because the facts underlying those cases may well turn out to be inaccurate. At first glance, the examples quoted by the National Childrens Bureau seem to have some inexplicable defects, but I should like to consider them rather more carefully and study the figures. I shall then respond to the National Childrens Bureau and, if necessary, will place the letter in the Library.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke to amendment No. 106. I shall read his speech, as he did, and I shall study the details that he went over rather quickly. Whereas the new clause seeks to overturn something that has existed for just over a month, he is seeking to overturn an arrangement that has existed for three weeks. We abolished the special rates, which were a carryover from the old board and lodging supplementary benefits scheme.

I believe that the old board and lodging system really provided an incentive for claimants and landlords 10 behave in a quite perverse manner. We know that some landlords who provided accommodation of this type used to hang signs in their windows saying "DHSS claimants only", because they could get from claimants on the board and lodging allowance rents they could not get from people in work, and they were prepared to specialise in this type of operation. Knowing that the claimants could get a benefit, landlords could make higher charges, often providing no extra services whatever and meals which were mere tokens. Claimants knew that they could get the personal allowance as well as the eating out allowance. The result was an explosion of this sort of provision, a trebling in only two years. It was therefore right to seek to change such a provision.

In essence, in the changes to the hostels and board and lodging areas we are attempting to provide that the social security system is neutral when it relates to the type of accommodation provided. Therefore, all claimants should have their housing cost met through the housing benefits system, and other needs met through income support. The amendment that the hon. Gentleman will be able to move on another day would negate the effect desired.

I also find it very difficult to support a system that encourages local authorities to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the homeless families or of the local authorities concerned. Many boroughs are able to get by without using that sort of provision. By using short lease or short life property, they avoid resorting to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is the right way to go.

Of course, as we make the changes to board and lodging provisions, we are providing transitional protection for varying periods to the most vulnerable groups. I cannot ask the House to accept the amendment or the new clause.

Mr. Flynn

The Minister refers to perverse incentives for people to leave home. I recall the words of the Prime Minister who, after promising that all young people would have a YTS place to go to, when questioned about the many thousands of young people from many parts of the country who found they still had no YTS place after the bridging period, replied that places were available if they were prepared to leave home. Is that not a perverse incentive for people to leave home? The Minister should look at the Government's own regulations relating to non-dependent relatives. In such cases, a large deduction is made from the family housing benefit—another perverse incentive for people to leave home.

When referring in my opening remarks to the malice and ignorance of some Conservative Members, I thought that I might have overstated the case, but then I heard from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) the genuine voice of malice and ignorance that inspires the Government. The tabloid understanding of reality of Conservative Members has driven them to this extreme of using the device of poverty to force confused, unhappy, damaged young people to do the Government's bidding.

The Minister appears not to understand this clause. Many Labour Members have said that it does not go far enough. There is a case for saying that there should not be a cut-off at the age of 25. There are no signs displayed in boarding houses stating that two rates apply to a flat—one for people older than 25, and one for younger people. In the supermarkets, there are not two prices for the groceries —one for the under-25s and one for the over-25s. The Government's policy is based on that irrationality.

We were practical and modest in framing the new clause. The people covered by it are those who will not be affected by any perverse desire to leave home and rush to the bright lights of Chelsea. They are specifically enumerated as those who have no homes to return to. They are married couples, people who have left home because of parental abuse, those who have never had a home, or have been in care for virtually all their lives, and those who are living away from the parental home for other reasons, perhaps because their parents cannot afford to support them as they are chronically sick or disabled.

There is no reason for the Minister to reject the new clause. Out duty is to cherish these young people, not to punish them. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 296.

Division No. 173]	[11.10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Dewar, Donald
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Dixon, Don
Anderson, Donald	Dobson, Frank
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Doran, Frank
Armstrong, Hilary	Duffy, A. E. P.
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Ashton, Joe	Eadie, Alexander
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Barron, Kevin	Faulds, Andrew
Battle, John	Fearn, Ronald
Beckett, Margaret	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Beith, A. J.	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Flannery, Martin
Bermingham, Gerald	Flynn, Paul
Bidwell, Sydney	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Blair, Tony	Foster, Derek
Blunkett, David	Foulkes, George
Boyes, Roland	Fraser, John
Bradley, Keith	Fyfe, Maria
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Galbraith, Sam
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Galloway, George
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Buchan, Norman	Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Buckley, George J.	Golding, Mrs Llin
Callaghan, Jim	Gordon, Mildred
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Graham, Thomas
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Grocott, Bruce
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Hardy, Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Henderson, Doug
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hinchliffe, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cohen, Harry	Home Robertson, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Hood, Jimmy
Corbett, Robin	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoyle, Doug
Cox, Tom	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Crowther, Stan	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cryer, Bob	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cummings, John	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Darling, Alistair	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Ingram, Adam
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)	Janner, Greville

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Redmond, Martin
Kilfedder, James	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Reid, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy	Richardson, Jo
Lamond, James	Robertson, George
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Lewis, Terry	Rogers, Allan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Rooker, Jeff
Loyden, Eddie	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McAllion, John	Ruddock, Joan
McAvoy, Thomas	Salmond, Alex
Macdonald, Calum A.	Sedgemore, Brian
McKelvey, William	Sheerman, Barry
McLeish, Henry	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Madderr, Max	Skinner, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mallon, Seamus	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Marek, Dr John	Snape, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Soley, Clive
Martlew, Eric	Spearing, Nigel
Maxton, John	Steinberg, Gerry
Meacher, Michael	Strang, Gavin
Meale, Alan	Straw, Jack
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Vaz, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri	Wall, Pat
Morley, Elliott	Wallace, James
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Wareing, Robert N.
Murphy, Paul	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Nellist, Dave	Wigley, Dafydd
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
O'Brien, William	Wilson, Brian
Parry, Robert	Winnick, David
Patchett, Terry	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Pendry, Tom	Wray, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prescott, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Radice, Giles	Mr. Frank Haynes and
Randall, Stuart	Mr. Allen McKay.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Buck, Sir Antony
Aitken, Jonathan	Budgen, Nicholas
Alexander, Richard	Burns, Simon
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Burt, Alistair
Allason, Rupert	Butcher, John
Amess, David	Butler, Chris
Amos, Alan	Butterfill, John
Arbuthnot, James	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Carrington, Matthew
Ashby, David	Carttiss, Michael
Aspinwall, Jack	Cash, William
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Chapman, Sydney
Baldry, Tony	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Batiste, Spencer	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bellingham, Henry	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Bendall, Vivian	Colvin, Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Conway, Derek
Benyon, W.	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Cope, Rt Hon John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Couchman, James
Body, Sir Richard	Cran, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Curry, David
Boswell, Tim	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bottomley, Peter	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Day, Stephen
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Devlin, Tim
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Dicks, Terry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Dorrell, Stephen
Brazier, Julian	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bright, Graham	Dover, Den
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Dunn, Bob
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Dykes, Hugh
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Evennett, David	Latham, Michael
Fallon, Michael	Lawrence, Ivan
Favell, Tony	Lee, John (Pendle)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Lightbown, David
Forman, Nigel	Lilley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Forth, Eric	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lord, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Franks, Cecil	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger	McCrindle, Robert
French, Douglas	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Fry, Peter	Maclean, David
Gale, Roger	McLoughlin, Patrick
Gill, Christopher	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Madel, David
Goodlad, Alastair	Malins, Humfrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mans, Keith
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Maples, John
Gorst, John	Marland, Paul
Gow, Ian	Marlow, Tony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gregory, Conal	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Grist, Ian	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ground, Patrick	Miller, Sir Hal
Grylls, Michael	Miscampbell, Norman
Hague, William	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Mitchell, Sir David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Moate, Roger
Hampson, Dr Keith	Monro, Sir Hector
Hanley, Jeremy	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hannam, John	Moore, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Moss, Malcolm
Harris, David	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Haselhurst, Alan	Mudd, David
Hawkins, Christopher	Neale, Gerrard
Hayward, Robert	Nelson, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nicholls, Patrick
Heddle, John	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Norris, Steve
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hill, James	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hind, Kenneth	Page, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Paice, James
Holt, Richard	Patnick, Irvine
Hordern, Sir Peter	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Howard, Michael	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Pawsey, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howell, Ralph (North Nortolk)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Portillo, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hunter, Andrew	Price, Sir David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Raffan, Keith
Irvine, Michael	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jack, Michael	Rathbone, Tim
Jackson, Robert	Redwood, John
Janman, Tim	Rhodes James, Robert
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Riddick, Graham
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Key, Robert	Roe, Mrs Marion
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rost, Peter
Knapman, Roger	Rowe, Andrew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Ryder, Richard
Knowles, Michael	Sackville, Hon Tom
Knox, David	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Scott, Nicholas
Lang, Ian	Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Shelton, Sir William	Tracey, Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Tredinnick, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Trippier, David
Shersby, Michael	Trotter, Neville
Sims, Roger	Twinn, Dr Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Viggers, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Waldegrave, Hon William
Speed, Keith	Walden, George
Speller, Tony	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Waller, Gary
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Walters, Sir Dennis
Squire, Robin	Ward, John
Stanbrook, Ivor	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Warren, Kenneth
Steen, Anthony	Watts, John
Stern, Michael	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Lewis	Whitney, Ray
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Widdecombe, Ann
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Wiggin, Jerry
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)	Wilshire, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, David	Wood, Timothy
Summerson, Hugo	Woodcock, Mike
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Yeo, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Tellers for the Noes:
Thornton, Malcolm	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Thurnham, Peter	Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.