HL Deb 17 December 1984 vol 458 cc452-64

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the regulations before the House today is to empower the Government to impose a temporary freeze on the maximum amounts of supplementary benefit payable to people in all forms of board and lodging accommodation, otherwise commonly known as the "local limits". The freeze is the first step in the overall action we are proposing as a result of the very disturbing facts that have become available during the past few months, on the rapid rise in board and lodging expenditure. There is, of course, nothing new about the basic arrangements for payments to people in board and lodging accommodation—those were firmly established in the days of the Supplementary Benefits Commission—but the sudden sharp increases in spending since 1982 indicate a new trend, present particular problems and demand firm action. The figures have been repeated often recently, but I think they are worth quoting again to set both the scale of the problem and these draft regulations in context.

Expenditure on supplementary benefit claimants in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes rose from £39 million in December 1982 to £102 million in December 1983. The corresponding figures for the ordinary board and lodging sector—guest houses, hostels and the like—were £166 million at December 1982 and a massive £277 million at December 1983. Our latest estimates are that total expenditure on this is now running at a level of some £570 million. Unless action is taken, this figure is likely to rise by a further 50 per cent. by December 1985. It would be quite irresponsible to allow this sort of trend to continue, and to do so might very well jeopardise expenditure on other parts of the the social security programme. It is against that background that the Government announced on 5th September their determination to act swiftly to bring expenditure in this field under control. Additional evidence that has become available since September only strengthens the need for urgent action.

The current system of local limits was introduced in November 1983 in a move to prevent exploitation. A previous open-ended commitment to meet charges, however high, in certain circumstances, was withdrawn and the system of determining basic entitlement was refined. Offices were advised to set local limits for the three new tiers of accommodation—ordinary board and lodging, residential care homes, and nursing homes. We undertook to monitor the new arrangements, and in doing so we grew concerned about both the scale of the increases that occurred in November 1983—the average ordinary board and lodging limit, for example, rose some 39 per cent. from £47.50 to £66—and about the very wide range of the new limits. Again, I make no apology for repeating the figures.

For ordinary board and lodging, the range was from £40 in Manchester (Wythenshaw) to £110 in Kingston; for residential care homes from £51 in Shoreditch to £215 in Leytonstone; and for nursing homes from £80 in Liverpool Belle Vale to £295 in Leytonstone again. There is mounting evidence that landlords of hotels and guest houses in particular see the higher current board and lodging limits as very attractive; some landlords have been advertising for supplementary benefit claimants, and increasing numbers of young people have been setting themselves up in seaside resorts. The supplementary benefit scheme is intended to meet genuine need, not to enable young people to choose a comfortable life-style by the seaside at the taxpayers' expense.

We have placed a list of the current local limits in the Library. This makes very interesting reading, expecially from the point of view of discrepancies between limits for neighbouring and apparently similar areas. Why, one may ask, should the ordinary board and lodging limit for Salford be some £40 to £50 higher than the limits in nearby Manchester? In compiling the list, we were struck also by the scale of the further increases in limits that had already occurred since the main annual review at November 1983. The fact remains that any increase in a limit, whatever its cause, enables all proprietors in that area to raise charges for any residents on suplementary benefit by up to the same amount. We have seen this happening over the past year.

We have indeed also heard from a number of Members of both Houses about elderly people paying for residential care from their own hard-earned resources, who have been put in very real difficulty when proprietors increase charges in step with supplementary benefit limits, often far in excess of the rate of inflation. Many such people, providing for themselves and expecting their savings to cover their needs adequately for the rest of their lives, are now suddenly finding that their money is running out because of these rapidly increasing fees. Further evidence of this sort continues to become available. It is clear that despite the good intentions behind the November 1983 changes, the current limit system is prone to unreasonable and inflationary increases.

A new system cannot of course be introduced overnight. We identified the scale of the problem and announced our intention to act in September. We then issued proposals for consultation on major changes in the current system in November, and we expect the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on this in January. We shall pay very close attention to this; but we nevertheless hope, subject to this consultation process and Parliamentary approval, to implement new arrangements in April 1985. This will he rapid progress by any standards, but expenditure is growing rapidly.

The provisions will work as follows. The regulations relieve adjudication officers of their obligation to decide on local limits by reference to local charges, and they transfer responsibility for setting the limits directly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He intends to use these powers to adopt the local limits in use when the proposed changes were first announced in September, and to freeze them at that level until the Spring. We have already undertaken to ensure that those claimants who had an appeal or a request for a review outstanding on 5th September will not be penalised by the freeze, and the draft regulations have been widely drawn to allow for this.

Regulation 3(3) enables my right honourable friend to determine limits either generally or in respect of a particular case or class of cases, and to revise the limits as he considers necessary. Where such a decision on an appeal or a review is specific to the circumstances of the individual claimant, that higher limit would be applied only to the individual concerned. Where there has been an appeal or review concerning a resident at a specialist, high-care residential home, for example, we would only want to apply the new higher limit to any claimant at the same establishment to ensure that the needs of vulnerable elderly or disabled people are safeguarded under the temporary freeze.

If however there were a case where an appeal tribunal had criticised a particular local limit on general grounds—in other words, saying that accommodation was not to be found within the area at that price—we would have to consider allowing a higher limit for the area as a whole. The wide powers we have taken enable us to adopt whichever approach is most appropriate because we believe that such flexibility is necessary to ensure that no one suffers as the result of the freeze.

In addition to these "no detriment" provisions, the regulations also allow us to consider any exceptional cases where there is danger of serious hardship. There will be no risk of this for the significant majority of boarders. They are paying charges below the appropriate local limit and will therefore be quite unaffected by the changes. Others who are presently relying on the provisions allowing an increase in the local limit in certain circumstances or on attendance allowance to help them meet a high charge, will have had these amounts uprated in the normal way at the end of November. But if, exceptionally, an individual claimant or establishment gets into real difficulty, we shall want to look at that case sympathetically. As I have indicated, we are particularly concerned that no elderly or disabled person should have to move from a residential or nursing home as a result of the temporary freeze, and we should take special care over any case where this seemed to be a possibility.

I should stress that we expect such cases to be very few; but, for example, we have already begun following up the small number of elderly and disabled claimants who received 12 months' transitional protection at the time of the November 1983 changes to check on their present position, and we shall want to consider further help in any case where expiry of protection looks likely to pose real problems. I should perhaps say that the power to vary limits is not confined to variations upwards. If anyone submits evidence to us that the current limit is encouraging exploitation, we shall want to look carefully at that evidence.

Finally, I should like to mention briefly the other largely technical and entirely beneficial items included in these draft regulations. Regulations 2(2) and 2(4) make minor amendments consequent upon the introduction of severe disablement allowance, to ensure that it, like non-contributory invalidity pension, is treated as a qualifying benefit for the supplementary benefit long-term scale—and that SDA is added to the list of benefits which, if they are received by a non-dependant in a household, means that no contribution for housing costs from that person is assumed in assessing the householder's supplementary benefit entitlement. Regulation 2(3) corrects an oversight in the up-rating regulations by up-rating the maximum amount by which a local limit can be increased in respect of a couple in special circumstances.

These regulations constitute a wholly responsible holding measure to contain expenditure until more far-reaching changes can be considered and implemented. They strike a balance between safeguarding public funds and making provision for exceptional cases. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Glenarthur.)

4.25 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I can agree with at least one point in the Minister's speech: we welcome the changes affecting the disability allowance. However, these changes seem to indicate some inefficiency, in that this particular allowance has only very recently been introduced. It must he confusing for claimants to find that already the Government are having to bring forward amendments and tidy up these matters. This indicates the terrible muddle which is to be found in the whole area of social services at the present time.

I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions, if he will be so courteous—as he usually is—to answer them. I understand the theory behind freezing local limits but I am worried about the practicalities. I know that there is a wide range of costs between one area and another but also within each area there are varying standards. There may be a warm and comfortable residential home which charges more than a cold, miserable slum down the road or around the corner. That is certainly true in the Borough of Camden, which I know best. There, one might he comparing—if the comparison is made purely on geographical grounds—a pleasant place in Hampstead with a slum at the back of St. Pancras station. I hope that in fixing these local limits, officers will be instructed to have regard to the standards of each establishment and not only to the neighbourhood.

The noble Lord the Minister referred to an increase in costs. Anyone who is serious about social security must look at these figures very carefully. However, the Minister did not tell the House why expenditure has increased so steeply and so rapidly. Why are there more people in bed and breakfast accommodation? Why are more people living in hostels? I do not want to be out of order by going beyond the proper range of this debate; but I hope that some time the Minister will ask himself whether there is any parallel between this situation and the decrease in local government provision for the elderly and the sick; and whether there is some parallel with housing cuts which are making it more and more impossible for councils to deal with the families on their waiting lists and who are the very people who so often finish up in such expensive and unsatisfactory accommodation.

This represents the biggest waste of money in the whole of government expenditure because there is nothing to show for it at the end—whereas if councils were allowed to get on with some building at least there would be homes for the future as well as for the present. Perhaps the Minister does not accept that there is some connection between the present situation and unemployment; but many of us are convinced that unemployment is at the heart of the matter—especially so far as young people are concerned.

How many people are involved? We do not want to know only about money. We want to know also how many people are affected. Is it the case that more money is being spent on proportionately more people, or is it being spent on proportionately fewer people? If the Minister is able to provide us with these figures and if he includes in them homeless families, then does a homeless family count as one unit, or are the members of the family counted individually so that we can have a fuller picture?

Certainly in London it is the homeless families, and not young people sunbathing on the beaches of King's Cross, which form the major part of the problem. They are homeless for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes they are homeless because they are genuinely looking for work. Sometimes there are older people who have been sent out of mental hospitals, and other vulnerable members of our society, who are supposed to be returned to what is called community care. Too often community care is the care of a landlady and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Some of these landladies do very good work and provide a very real social service, but many of us would rather see that provision fall directly within the responsibility of local authorities.

What arrangements will the Minister be making, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, for inspection? There is no doubt that it is the landlords who are getting the money, not the claimants, and it is the landlords who should be penalised. How do we know that the Minister's department is getting value for money? I understand that his officers are supposed to contact local authorities if they have reason to suspect that there are fire hazards or health hazards in this sort of accommodation. I can tell the Minister what happens, although I am sure that he will have a more informed answer than I have. When the local authorities are contacted they have to say that owing to Government policy they have fewer environment officers, that they have a long list of old houses waiting to be inspected and that they are short of clerks to process the information and to put details through the machinery. We had a dreadful case recently in Camden, although the home was in Westminster, where a woman and two children were burned to death in a really disreputable place which, even had it been inspected, the landlord was not inclined to put right.

Unless there is some inspection on that side it is no use chasing young people around because they are on a sort of holiday on the south coast. The people I want to get at are those who are exploiting the claimants and, therefore, are exploiting the Minister and the whole department. Until there is inspection we cannot do that, because we do not know what standards we are paying for. I have had complaints from people in one of these bed-and-breakfast homes—I shall send a note to the Minister about this—where the department pays for bed and breakfast but the landlord does not give any breakfast. He lets the tenants borrow a kettle to make a cup of tea, but the taxpayer is paying for what is supposed to be their breakfast. That is what I call exploitation, and I wish that the Government would pay more attention to that aspect.

I have one final point. Is there to be any change in the Government's attitude to furniture grants? Why do we not encourage more of these people to try to find unfurnished accommodation? I know that it is very difficult, and certainly it is not easy anywhere in the country. However, I do not see why we must have the present rule that applies if someone does find an unfurnished flat. A case recently came to my attention of a man who was told that the rules said he could only have the flat he had found if no suitable alternative furnished accommodation was available. How could he prove that there was not a furnished flat somewhere else and only then ask for help from the department for what would be a much higher rent than the rent of the little place he had found, which was empty and unfurnished? It is false economy and I believe that the advisory committee is looking into this. It would be in everyone's interest if such help could be given in suitable cases.

I should have liked to have gone further into what we regard as the root causes of the problem. I recognise that the Minister is trying to deal with the symptoms and not the causes, but often one does have to treat symptoms. We have no time for cheating: we totally condemn that. I am anxious—we are all anxious—that those on social security, the majority of whom are there through no fault of their own and whose numbers are increasing because of the Government's policies, should not be penalised. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will spend more time in dealing with the underlying causes which lead to what is a disgraceful and very sad situation for many of our poorest people.

4.35 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his clear exposition of the purpose and content of these regulations. As he explained, they are only an interim measure. We are to receive further proposals, and we have had an indication in the consultative document of what they will be. If I have understood the timetable aright, we shall be discussing those proposals in February.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that if there is abuse then we on these Benches want to eradicate it. If hoteliers and proprietors have been rooking the Department of Health and Social Security, we want to put a stop to it. If anyone is being feather-bedded by the social security system we want to end that. But we are not clear on how much the increasing cost to which the noble Lord has referred is due to abuse and how much is due to the economic policies pursued by the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested.

These regulations and the consultative document have all the appearance of panic measures. After all, it is only a year since alteration was made to the arrangements, as the noble Lord explained. The single local limit for board and lodging, plus the local discretion to go higher in certain cases, was withdrawn and replaced with the three categories, each linked to the highest reasonable charge in the locality. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that there has been an increase in the total cost, but certain questions have to be asked in that connection. For example, in 1983 did not the Social Security Advisory Committee report criticism that in some cases previous local limits had been set at unrealistically low levels? Is the increase in cost not due more to an increase in the number of claimants, principally unemployed, than to an increase in charges? Is it not reasonable to suppose that young unemployed people are more likely to leave home to look for work the longer they have been unemployed? Therefore, there is a build-up in the numbers involved in this particular benefit. Is it not true that youth unemployment has increased from 814,000 in October 1980 to 1,286,000 in October 1984?

I should like to ask the Minister this further question. Is it not correct that the increase in charges in 1983–84 was 8.4 per cent., the lowest figure for five years? That figure is certainly in excess of the rate of inflation, but it is not a figure that suggests that charges are out of control. One is bound to ask whether there is any need for panic measures and whether it would not have been perfectly satisfactory to leave this matter to be dealt with by the general reviews now being conducted by the department, which reviews deal with the question of benefits for young people and with supplementary benefit.

Under this order, a freeze is instituted from 5th September 1984. In the Department of Health and Social Security press notice of 5th September it is stated that any increase needed—and it does not say, "any increase given", it says, "any increase needed"—under the terms of the 1983 regulations after 5th September will be taken away when the order goes through. I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that that is just and reasonable. I should like to ask him also whether he thinks that all existing local rates are excessive and, if that is not so and all local rates are not excessive, will not a freeze inevitably penalise some?

Then there is the question of the elderly to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred and the fear that some elderly people may be moved out of their homes during the freeze or when the new proposals come into effect. As I understand it, long-term protection at existing levels of payment is guaranteed only if charges are considered reasonable. I want to press the Minister again on what he has said about the Government being most concerned to look at all cases where people may be moved from their homes. What will be the position if, because of increases in charges which are not permitted as a result either of the freeze now imposed or of the new regulations, a person cannot afford to remain in his or her present accommodation? Many elderly people have been advised to go into their accommodation by community or hospital social workers. It would not seem to be right that they should now be moved.

Then there are cases where the limit for residential care has been fixed to accommodate homes for the elderly and does not meet the more substantial care required by the young physically handicapped. A total freeze on current limits would not allow temporary problems raised by that situation to be solved before next April or May. I should like to ask whether the Secretary of State will use his reserve powers to consider such cases favourably.

Under the order, and indeed under the new regulations if they follow the lines of those suggested in the consultative document, the fixing of limits will be transferred from the local adjudication officer to the Minister. This is another piece of the centralisation which is so beloved of the present Government. I think they have taken as their motto the slogan, "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best".

Then I have a question about residential care. Are not the Government dealing with the problem of residential care—which, of course, is involved in this order—in a piecemeal fashion? For example, there has been a consultative document on payments for residential care. What is the outcome of the responses to that? There has been a marked shift from local authority sponsorship to supplementary benefit. Is there not ground for concern about continuity of care if there is no local authority involvement? Is not a wider and more comprehensive review necessary in this field?

While we want to eradicate abuse, we are not happy about the effect of this order. We shall want to examine very critically and carefully the proposals for further change when they are finalised and brought before us.

4.44 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, today's regulations are part of a process which I think appears to a number of your Lordships to be deeply disturbing. In fact, the whole matter appears to be another example of the Government's tendency to take a sledgehammer in order to crack a rather small nut. That is a process which involves a great deal of danger to anyone or anything which happens to get in the way. I say "a tendency" since noble Lords will recall only too well that the whole of the nonsense which the Government, Parliament and the greater part of the urban administration of this country is plunged into as a result of the Government's determination to avoid the cheap, simple and obvious answers to the problems of local government overspending. This appears to be another exercise in the same area.

What we are discussing today may be only an order and only an interim measure but it is building up to a way of coping with what it is undoubtedly an abuse but coping with it by involving really the whole of the machinery of government, bringing the whole of the solution into the centre and increasing—not decreasing in any way—the amount of bureaucracy involved.

The problem really boils down to the scandal of the youths living on social security at the seaside. That is a scandal which makes good headlines but which, as has been pointed out, is more a question of dishonest lodging-house keepers than anything else. It certainly must be dealt with. What seems quite intolerable is that it should be dealt with in such unnecessary haste, by-passing Parliament to a certain extent—to the extent, for instance, that we have already had: the freeze on these charges and now the regulations to allow the freeze actually to happen. It also puts a brake on mobility and it sets and is in danger of setting, according to the consultation document, unrealistic limits for the accommodation of families.

This is not the time for a debate on the consultation paper and I will not embark on it. However, I must take the opportunity to say that Church Action on Poverty, of which I have the honour to be an officer, will be among the very many bodies which will be deeply concerned if the limits on charges for accommodation have the effect that Shelter now predicts they will—that of a massive squeeze on families, coming from the proposed limits. Life is far too near the knuckle for such families as it is.

The Government would also do well to look at the effect of their proposals on mobility. What has happened to the philosophy of "Get on your bike"? Perhaps the truth is that the Government have finally come to terms with the fact that there are not any jobs anywhere. But certainly, in so far as there are and in so far as any will occur, job mobility is one of the things that we definitely want to encourage. The whole of this process through which we are going this afternoon does not help with that.

To return to this order in particular, we of course must welcome it in some sense since it may be said to some extent to "make an honest woman" of the Government, in that the Government have most improperly anticipated the passing of this order by imposing the freeze on these accommodation limits anyway.

But when we come back to the order itself, the fact is that with this, as with so much of what this Government do, their main recourse, as my noble friend said, is to centralise. A party which campaigned, and has campaigned for years, on freeing the people from government has produced more centralisation than any government for 35 years. This is another example. Their motto appears to be, "If there is a nut to crack, choose the biggest hammer you can find and give it to us. We are the only people". The Government ask, drunk with their own righteousness, "Who can wield the hammer of reform? Get out of my way, all you others, unless you want to get hurt".

It is our business to see that people do not get hurt, particularly that the weak and the defenceless do not get hurt. This order today is a fairly minor matter but the whole process of which it is a part is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, deeply disturbing. I hope your Lordships will not allow this matter to progress further in the direction that the Government want without challenging it extremely severely.

4.50 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I should perhaps say first to those noble Lords who have spoken that the regulations with which we are concerned today are part of a holding measure only. This is, I think, worth stressing. Some, if not many, of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will be covered in the second stage of the action we are now looking at. As the noble Baroness will be aware, details of these proposals have already been submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. I can assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken that we shall certainly take note of the comments that it receives as part of our consultation procedure.

I should state immediately that, unlike the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there is no question at all of the freeze having been imposed illegally or in any other improper way in advance of the necessary regulations. When the scale of the recent increases in expenditure on board and lodging payments became apparent, as they did in the summer, we decided that we must give an early signal of our plans to bring about a firm control of the arrangements in force. That is what led to the Statement on 5th September. However, we could not introduce the temporary freeze immediately since the necessary regulations would of course require the approval of both Houses before they could be implemented.

We therefore made clear that the regulations would be introduced at an early opportunity after Parliament reassembled. We were anxious to avoid any last minute pressure by landlords and proprietors to push up local limits by increasing their charges in the intervening period. This would have quite defeated the object of the exercise. We made plain therefore that when we did take powers for Ministers to set the local limits, we would adopt those limits in force at the time of the 5th September announcement. I hope that that clarifies any impression to the contrary that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may have gained.

I think that I should go on to say that, in the light of this intention, the chief adjudication officer concluded that there would be no purpose in proceeding with the normal full-scale annual review of local limits, usually timed to coincide with the general benefit up-rating, which took place on 26th November. However, pending the introduction of the regulations before us, it has remained open to individual adjudication officers to review local limits if particular local circumstances require it. This was made clear in the guidance issued to local officers in circular S39, a copy of which is available in the Library. The arrangements were also explained to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which decided to waive consultation on the interim measures and await the proposals for longer-term change. I hope that that explains that particular point.

I revert now to some of the other points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, spoke about the variation of standards which explain the existing variations in limit. Yes, there is a variation of standards. I am sure that some of the examples that she gave do indeed take place. I should explain, however, that the draft regulations will freeze the existing limits at their current levels and we shall not expect local offices to revise their limits. As to the general standards of variation throughout the country, yes, certainly, those that "rip off" people, so to speak, by putting them in appalling accommodation—for example, not supplying them with breakfast when they should be supplied with breakfast, as the noble Baroness explained—are to be deplored. One would like to find ways of sorting that out.

The noble Baroness asked particularly about inspection. She asked whether we were not concerned about taxpayers' money and the health and safety of claimants. We are concerned, obviously, about large sums of money spent on expensive, overcrowded and dangerous establishments with poor amenities. The steps that we propose on board and lodging payments will help curb this abuse and this exploitation by landlords and proprietors. However, the enforcement of accommodation standards is a matter for local authorities. Local authorities already have a duty to inspect periodically houses in multiple occupation. There is a wide range of powers available to them to tackle the problems that have been mentioned. For example, they can ensure proper standards and amenities; they can limit the number of occupants; they can take out a control order; and they can run buildings themselves to protect the health, safety and welfare of occupants. Hotels are also subject to control by local authorities in important aspects of safety and health and also fire precautions under various enactments.

As to any challenge to the DHSS to take particular action in cases of substandard accommodation and the question, "Why don't we?", I can say that, where there is cause for concern about standards at an establishment, supplementary benefit staff should report this to the responsible local authority department. This I have no doubt they will continue to do. As part of next year's board and lodging measures, we intend to take the opportunity to strengthen the existing instructions on reporting substandard conditions to those authorities. Our new instructions will require local office staff to monitor and to record referrals to local authorities and the eventual outcome. We hope that this will also prove effective in combating substandard facilities.

The noble Baroness asked about furniture grants. Single payments for furniture can be very large, as I have seen myself in some of the visits that I have made to local offices. I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that. The present rule on there being no suitable furnished accommodation before furniture grants are paid is intended to prevent abuse—and I am afraid that there is abuse. There have been similar rules for many years. The Government are awaiting a report on single payments for furniture by the Social Security Policy Inspectorate and advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee. And the whole area of single payments is being considered in the current review of supplementary benefit. It would be wrong to rush into premature changes until those reports are completed.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, charged the Government with panic measures. The November 1983 changes, like our current proposals, were intended to introduce more effective controls on expenditure on board and lodging. It is now clear that expenditure was rising more rapidly before 1983 than we realised. But it is a mistake, I think, to blame the November 1983 changes for the increases in costs that have occurred between December 1982 and 1983. It is because we recognise that the November 1983 changes failed to stem the increase in supplementary benefit expenditure that we have come forward with further proposals.

The noble Lord asked about figures for the November 1983 changes. There were two conflicting criticisms of the local limits system prior to November 1983. A local limit for all types of accommodation was too low to cope with the wide variety of accommodation paid for on a board and lodging basis. Secondly, and contradictorily, expenditure was getting out of control because of a discretionary power to meet charges in excess of local limits in special circumstances. To meet these criticisms, Ministers abolished the discretionary power and introduced the three categories of local limits to which I referred in moving the regulations. Local offices reviewed all limits at the end of 1983 on the basis of advice issued by the chief adjudication officer. This advice stressed that limits should be set by reference to the highest reasonable charge in the area concerned and only accommodation that was unusually expensive would be omitted. The November 1983 changes have not curbed rising expenditure or been the cost-neutral package which had been expected by my ministerial colleagues and the Social Security Advisory Committee. Considerable increases in limits—sometimes well over 50 per cent., as I described, in local limits—have resulted. There are wider ranges of limits across the country that are really most extraordinary and very difficult to explain, both in housing and in labour costs.

The changes in 1983 produced increases in average limits across the country. I could give the noble Lord all the figures, but I suspect that it might be best if I let him have the figures in writing in due course, if he would be happy with that. He asked why we should take action now and why we do not wait until the reviews are complete. But local limits did rise significantly in 1983, and that is why we had to make the changes that we have made. For example, 80 residential care limits have been further increased in 1984 by an average of £25 a week—not an insignificant sum. It would have been irresponsible to allow the trend to go on; and a trend it has certainly become. I think that trend is self-evident from the figures I was able to give the noble Lord when I spoke earlier.

As to the concern which he expressed and which I think others, too, might feel—that some individuals might be forced to move, particularly the elderly and those less able to look after themselves—I really have to revert to what I said in moving the regulations; that was, that in exceptional cases where an individual claimant or establishment gets into real difficulty we will have to look at that case sympathetically. There is no expectation that there should be many cases of this sort; but there will be some, perhaps, and if that is so we shall have to look very carefully at them. I can assure the noble Lord and others that these people are not forgotten. That is why we have set out the regulations in the way that we have.

The need for continuity in residential homes, to which the noble Lord referred, is a point which we have considered, and a joint working party of DHSS officials and the local authority associations has been established to improve co-ordination in the area of residential care. Our aim is to encourage local authorities' help with determining suitability of accommodation for those supported by supplementary benefit.

On the more general political question of the young and mobility of labour throughout the country, which the noble Lord raised, I should like to say that I am aware of the recent comment in the press about this, but I can tell your Lordships that the children and young persons' review, which is examining the benefit position of young people, is due to report at the end of the year. It would be premature to react before we have that report with us, and so no final decisions have been taken at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that to some extent the problem was one of dishonest landlords, but there is evidence of abuse by young people. Numbers of young claimants have increased the most rapidly of all, as I am sure he is aware. The number of boarders aged 25 and under rose by some 60 per cent.—from 23,000 to 37,000—between 1982 and 1983, and all the evidence is that the growth in numbers in this age group is continuing rapidly and disproportionately to all other claimants. There have been many reports of youngsters paying board and lodging charges of £60, £70, £80 a week, or more, and that is well in excess of what they could in fact earn in employment.

There have been some blatant attempts to gain extra benefit through claiming as a boarder—for example, families even swapping their teenage sons to maximise their benefit income—and there are many people who are disturbed that large amounts of supplementary benefit should be payable to young, immature people so as to entice them away from their families. I am quite sure that all your Lordships would agree that the family is the basis for so much, and that to allow the supplementary benefit regulations to achieve an undesirable end in that direction is most unsatisfactory.

The fact is that, as I started by explaining, we have now reached an interim point. We are consulting. The views that will be expressed will, no doubt, be many. The Social Security Advisory Committee are advising on it. But to have continued in this way, without control, would have been irresponsible.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would remind him that we asked him a lot of questions. Can he let us have the figures for homeless families, who are really such a large proportion of those in the bed and breakfast accommodation?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, yes, of course. I shall do my best to find out, and let the noble Baroness know.

On Question, Motion agreed to.