Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985

HL Deb 04 April 1985 vol 462 cc366-93

12.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, I beg to move the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985 laid before your Lordships' House on 26th March be approved. Perhaps I may also speak to the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1985 which were laid before your Lordships' House on 21st March. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to deal with the regulations in reverse order since the latter set, concerning statutory sick pay, are entirely straight forward and self-contained and I shall confine myself to a purely factual presention of their effect.

The need for these amendment regulations has arisen because a social security commissioner has decided that the existing law is not what the Government had hitherto believed it to be. I must make it clear to your Lordships that all that these regulations do is to put the matter beyond any doubt, and to ensure that generally accepted and longstanding policy continues to apply.

The regulations are intended to make it absolutely clear that statutory sick pay—which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall refer to as SSP—is to be taken fully into account for the purposes of determining a person's entitlement to supplementary benefit. SSP was introduced in April 1983 for those who work for an employer and who pay Class 1 national insurance contributions. It largely replaced national insurance sickness benefit during the early weeks of incapacity. Payments of SSP made by employers are fully reimbursed by the state.

For supplementary benefit purposes, sickness benefit has always been taken into account, and it was decided by the Government that so, too, should SSP. That has been the position from the time SSP was introduced until the Social Security Commissioner, in a recent decision, decided that the existing law did not support the policy intention and that SSP was subject to a weekly disregard of £4.

I should point out that the chief adjudication officer has some doubts about the legal basis of the commissioner's decision and is seeking leave to appeal against his decision. But it seemed right to the Government to put the legal position beyond doubt as a matter of urgency, rather than await the outcome of that appeal. The regulations, if approved, will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee as soon as practicable after they have been made.

I now turn to the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985 whose main purpose is to introduce new arrangements for all forms of board and lodging payments in order to control expenditure and help curb abuse while giving protection to the vulnerable and those in real need. The dramatic increases in spending over the past few years demand firm—but fair—action. Between December 1982 and 1983 supplementary benefit expenditure rose from £166 million to £270 million for ordinary board and lodging, and from £39 million to £102 million for the residential care and nursing home sector. It is estimated that total expenditure on all forms of board and lodging in 1984 was £570 million. Further significant increases are likely if action is not taken.

As a first step, Ministers took direct responsibility for determining the limits—the maximum amounts allowed for board and lodging. These powers—Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment and Temporary Provisions Regulations 1984—were used to impose a temporary freeze last autumn on existing locally-determined limits, until new arrangements could be introduced. The proposals for change were announced last November and were submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee for public consultation. The committee's report and the Government's response were published on 21st March.

In framing these regulations we have taken careful account of the committee's views and the representations received—for which we are naturally grateful. It has of course not been possible to meet all concerns because effective control both of expenditure and of abuse must be maintained. But we have made substantial modifications to the original proposals, particularly in the ordinary board and lodging sector.

First let me deal with this aspect. The limits which are currently set locally for each office will be set for each area at one of the six standard rates ranging from £45 to £70. Most will be set between £50 and £60. For this purpose DHSS local offices have been grouped, taking account of Department of Employment travel-to-work areas, so as to reflect as far as possible established accommodation, employment and travelling patterns. Couples will receive a maximum of one-and-three-quarters the single adult limit, unless they have a child under 11, when twice the single rate will continue to apply.

For those aged 26 or over there will be no restrictions on the period of payment as a boarder. Those aged 25 or under, unless in an exemption category, will be restricted to two, four or eight weeks as a boarder, according to the area, thereafter the non-householder rate would normally apply. The exemption categories set out in the consultative document have been expanded in line with many suggestions of the advisory committee and will apply to all those aged 25 or under.

Hostels, which previously came within ordinary board and lodging, are treated as a separate category and will have a national limit set at £70 a week, in recognition of the special facilities and services they provide. There will be no restrictions on stay for people in hostels.

For residential care and nursing homes we have set limits at levels which we believe will allow reasonable charges to be met in homes meeting the new registration arrangements under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The new structure of limits based on registration categories will be £110 a week for a residential care home for the elderly; £120 a week for the mentally ill and also for homes for drug and alcohol misusers; £140 a week for the mentally handicapped; and £170 a week for those who became physically disabled below pension age. A nursing home supplement of £28.60 will be added to these limits for nursing homes. Although this supplement is equivalent to the level of attendance allowance, it is entirely separate from that allowance. It is part of the supplementary benefit payment and need not be claimed separately. Your Lordships will be pleased that, in line with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation, we have decided to introduce a hospice category catering for the terminally ill. The limit will be £198.60 a week.

There are three other important changes. First, topping-up payments by local authorities for claimants under pension age in residential care homes will be allowed without reducing supplementary benefit entitlement. Secondly, attendance allowance will be taken into account in full. Thirdly, the rate of personal expenses for those in residential care and nursing homes will be set at £8.50–30p higher than proposed in the consultative document. This brings the position closer to that in local authority homes.

We recognise that existing claimants will need a period to adjust to the changes. Those over pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue for life to have charges met at the existing level, or until payments under the new limits become more favourable. Those under pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue to have charges met at the current level for 12 months. There are protection arrangements of other claimants, depending on the accommodation they are in.

Following the freeze in existing limits—and in view of the many anxieties expressed—we recognise that it is appropriate to review the new limits before November 1986. We shall look at them again within 12 months of the operative date.

The Government are the first to accept that better information is needed on certain aspects. A number of studies are already under way as further research is planned. There is no doubt that firm action is needed to control expenditure, which has increased far beyond any social need. We believe the proposals, modified in the light of the committee's advice, will enable real needs to be properly met while avoiding wasteful expenditure and abuse. The Government will monitor carefully the effects of the changes and will make further changes if a need is shown. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved.—(Baroness Trwnpington.)

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I shall put these two Motions in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. The Question is that the first Motion he agreed to.

12.57 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I believe that this is the first occasion on which the noble Baroness the Minister has taken charge of a major debate in her newly promoted capacity, and we wish her well. We do not promise her a good time, or an easy time, but we know that we can rely on her to deal sympathetically and honestly with the many questions which we shall have to raise.

Perhaps I may begin with statutory sick pay. I remind your Lordships that we opposed this at the time it was introduced. It was very complicated and very difficult and a great nuisance to employers, especially to small businesses about which the Government are usually so careful. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that it appears that the existing law is not what the Government thought it was. That is a very interesting confession. Some of us were unsure at the time whether the Government knew what they were doing. We shall look forward to further debate on that matter.

On the larger questions there has already been a great deal of thought and discussion, and many people of all political parties are worried and disappointed. The Minister has told us about the increases in the numbers of applicants and in the amount of money being spent, but I wish she could have told us why this is so. Why are homeless people crowding into inadequate lodgings? Why are young people drifting around looking for work? Why are we seeing increased pressures on voluntary organisations? Why are local authorities having to reduce the provision that they are able to make for residential care, for hostels for young people and for building flats and permanent housing for the homeless? It is economic madness to pursue that line and I very much regret that the Government are doing so. They are dealing with symptoms which in themselves are not always very well diagnosed, and are not dealing with causes.

I shall say a word or two about abuse in a moment, but first I should like to quote to the House a sentence in the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. Paragraph 9 states: We are deeply concerned that in attempting to limit spending and control abuse where it exists, the proposals are likely to affect large numbers of unemployed claimants who have no real option but to stay in board and lodging accommodation, and whose ability to search for jobs will be much impeded by the restrictions on place and length of stay as a boarder". What we are dealing with today is not a social security problem; and in that respect I have great sympathy for the Minister. This is largely a housing problem. It is a public expenditure problem. If the Government create situations through economies being made in other departments, it seems unfair that the bill should land on the desk of the DHSS which is not responsible for the causes of the problems.

As regards abuse, we have to ask why it was taking place and who was doing it. Was it necessarily done by young people looking for a good time, as has been prominent in most of the Government's explanations of these regulations? If so, what did the local DHSS officers do about advertisements? In the other place this week an advertisement was quoted in which a landlady said, "DHSS payments arranged." Why did the DHSS local office give that landlady the money she asked for? It was not the claimant who got the money; it was the landlady. Moreover, it was said that some of these young people were just having a good time by the seaside. I understood that for an applicant to receive assistance he or she had to be genuinely seeking work. Again, what were the local officers doing if these people were shown not to be genuinely seeking work? To lay all the blame on what I am sure is a minority of people seems to be no way for the Government to tackle this very difficult problem.

The noble Baroness said that careful consideration had been given to the remarks of the Social Security Advisory Committee, but if I were a member of that committee I would not feel that much consideration had been given to the most serious and thoughtful points made in the report. I could give your Lordships many examples, but I know that those who are interested will read the report for themselves and would not want me to take up too much time on it.

However, there cannot be a more friendless set of regulations in the Government's calendar. I have received a whole pile of objections not on political grounds, but from the people who work in this held, who have to help the homeless find a roof and help people who are trying to look after the old, sick and handicapped. I have representations from the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Directors of Social Work, the British Association of Social Workers, the Social Care Association, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. They are not Bolshevik organisations. I refer also to Age Concern, Shelter, CHAR, and the British Refugee Council. In fact, I could detain your Lordships for a long time. I hope the Government will understand that they are people who know what the problem is on the ground. It is ungracious and unrealistic to ignore their representations.

I mentioned the primacy of the housing problem in all this. I understand that local authority expenditure is still falling. I have been informed that there is an estimate that gross capital expenditure on local authority housing will be over 40 per cent. lower for 1985–86 than it was in 1979–80. Housing benefits are in chaos. I wish that the expenditure of which the Minister is complaining could be transfered to the provision of housing, for housing associations and voluntary organisations, instead of the opposite, which I think is economic madness.

I shall now make one or to two special points. As regards the blind, there is great anxiety that, in the way the figures have been established for the upper limits, there is less money for someone who goes blind after retirement age than before it. There is the difference between £110 a week and £,170 a week, I am told. Often it is the elderly who are likely to go blind and to have other difficulties such as deafness and incapacity and who, in any case, find that if they suddenly go blind in their old age, it is more difficulty to adjust than it is in the case of a younger person. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has four homes, including two which look after the deaf-blind. The institute believes that these lower payments will make its work very difficult. I agree with that so far as all disability is concerned.

I cannot see why the Government are making this difference according to the age at which one is overtaken by disability. In fact, many of us start getting a bit groggy before we retire and there is then a gradual deterioration. We may feel a bit worse after retiring, but it is not always a sudden calamity to which one can fix an actual date and say when one became disabled. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how they propose to work that one out.

I was very concerned about representations made by the British Refugee Council. People who come to this country are helped by the council, which does excellent work for people in very distressing circumstances. The council feels that there will be special hardships for refugees if they are not allowed to have the very minimal comfort and support which the council tries to give them at present. Refugees are people who, above all, need some stability and comfort and who do not need harassing. There seems to be a special need there.

I am sure that the Minister has seen the representations from Age Concern and CHAR. I hope that she will be able to answer some of the points raised by these very experienced bodies. I am also very worried about the age limit being fixed at 26. We are not talking about drifting, or even adventurous, school-leavers, but men and women up to the age of 26. I do not know why that age was fixed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

I hope that the Minister will also explain how fixing time limits for people to stay in certain places, without increasing the amount of accommodation, is going to help. Surely the Government are only producing a kind of musical chairs of misery where it is all right so long as a chap swaps digs with someone round the corner. The fact that provision is not increased makes that a futile exercise, particularly in the areas of very high unemployment and of housing stresses.

For the youngest there is the rule about four weeks being long enough for them to find work; otherwise they have to move on. The people who have made that regulation must be living in an unreal world. Perhaps no one in the Government has had to apply for a job for some time now. It often means finding a vacancy, checking the advertisement, and writing a letter. Many applicants complain that it is sometimes two or three weeks before they have a reply. If they are called for an interview, another week or 10 days may have gone by. Some of us have heard the doomed phrase, "We have others to see. We will let you know". In no time four weeks has gone by. The young person may then be sent a letter offering him a job and he may have had to leave the address that he gave to the employer. I cannot see what sense that makes. I shall be interested to see whether the noble Baroness can produce some reason. In another place the Secretary of State said that 25 per cent. of young people found a job in under four weeks. He did not go on to say that 75 per cent. did not.

Age Concern mentions particularly the elderly mentally infirm. There does not seem to be fair consideration of their needs. Even the Church of Scotland—I say that not in any derogatory way, but to emphasise the width of the objections to the new rules—says that the rates laid down for its 41 homes are below the charges that it has to make. I cannot imagine that Church of Scotland homes are particularly extravagant. It points out that local authorities are not able to top up the money. I ask the Minister what is to happen to the people who cannot stay in those homes. Where are they to go? If responsible voluntary bodies take the view that they cannot manage within those limits, they deserve to be taken seriously.

Going back for a moment to the Social Security Advisory Committee, I thought that its comments on the question of moving people around were very telling. It said that the Government are on the verge of creating, a class of homeless and rootless young person who is unable to return to the parental home, for whatever reason, and who cannot remain long enough in any one location to find permanent accommodation or a job". Preventing continuous residence causes another problem. When people apply to get on council lists for housing there is often a residence qualification—sometimes two years, three years, or even more. Many private landlords also expect an applicant to have an address where he can be contacted. They do not like to feel that a prospective tenant is a tramp, wandering around without any roots.

I have to ask how the figures were fixed. I notice that the nursing home rate is only £28.60 higher than for residential care. I wonder whether that is enough, in view of the fact that one would expect higher staffing ratios and probably more highly qualified staff in nursing homes dealing with very sick people than in residential care. I have to ask also what allowance is being made for inflation. Will the figures automatically go up? Will they be index-linked? Alternatively, will they stay as they are until November 1986, which I think was what the noble Baroness said? Then perhaps the noble Baroness can explain why the rates have been fixed according to the category of the home and not the needs of the patients. It seems to me that staffing might vary very much according to the patients and the infirmities which bring them together in one home, rather than according to what the home is called.

The problem of homeless people living in this dreadful bed and breakfast accommodation is well known to us all. It must be deplored. It is a waste of money and it does not provide people with anything like a home, especially where there are small children. They have nowhere to play. In many that I know they arc sent out after breakfast. These places are not properly inspected. There are hazards of fire, there are shared bathrooms and there are various other squalid conditions. Where are those people to go while the Government pursue their lunatic housing policy? It is no use saying to a lot of young people in central London, many of whom are being cared for by voluntary associations, that they should go somewhere else. They have nowhere to go. We cannot tell homeless young people in Camden or Westminster to go home. They are at home. They are where they belong; they are not at the seaside.

We foresee a great many problems and difficulties, and we very much regret that these rules have been drawn up, not because we go along with abuse at all, but because we are confident that the abuses could have been dealt with differently and without causing hardship to so many innocent, deserving and vulnerable people.

1.16 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her clear explanation of the regulations and to join in welcoming her advent to this complex field of social security and congratulate her upon it. The noble Baroness said that the statutory sick pay regulations were straightforward. I think that that is right. I do not want to say anything about them, except to draw attention to the fact, which is not strictly within the regulations but is related to statutory sick pay, that the Public Accounts Committee in another place said during the course of the past week that one in three sickness payments made to staff under the Government's devolved statutory sick pay scheme were found to be wrong. It seems to me that there is a little way to go yet before we have that scheme exactly as it ought to be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has rightly referred to the widespread concern about the proposals dealing with board and lodging. There were 504 representations made to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and that was the largest number which it had ever had. It is all the more to be regretted that there was such a shortage of time for consideration of the proposals. The Secretary of State in his statement admits that there was a tight timetable.

First of all, we had the consultative document, then we had the very thorough report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on that, and then we had the statement from the Secretary of State which amended the proposals to some extent in the light of some of the criticisms made, while resisting strongly some of the other criticisms. There was no time to get the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the final proposals. It regretted that, though it welcomed the fact that it was brought in early in the initial discussions.

Those regulations are before us today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made clear, because of an increase in expenditure—an increase in expenditure from 1979 to 1984 of between £60 million and £600 million overall, that relating to ordinary board and lodging being the bulk of it, which is an increase from £52 million to £380 million. That is a considerable increase, but I think that we have to get it into perspective and realise that, even taking the figure which covers the whole field, it is only 11/2 per cent. of the social security budget.

If there is any abuse, it must be checked. But, on the other hand, there does not seem to me to be a crisis. There seems to be no cause for panic. I should have thought that the matter could have been left to be dealt with by the social security reviews now in progress which cover this field among others. It is clear from the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that this is a problem of numbers of claimants rather than increase in average costs—certainly more recently. The Government say that social security benefit cannot be allowed to increase at the rate I indicated just now when I mentioned the increase in figures between 1979 and 1984. However, if there are more genuinely homeless people are the Government saying that the way to tackle that problem is to attack costs? I hope they will not apply that principle to unemployment benefit.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, the trouble is that we do not know the causes for the increase in numbers. We may have ideas about it but we cannot be certain. The Government say that it is not unemployment. They say that in 1983 the number of boarders rose by 27 per cent. and the number of those under 26 rose by 60 per cent. but the number of unemployed claimants rose by only 5 per cent. However, it remains true that youth unemployment rose by 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1984 and I should think that what we are seeing is the cumulative effect of that. That cumulative effect must have played a big part in the escalating costs.

There is the question which, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned about the lack of adequate housing provision. It seems to me that the Social Security Advisory Committee is right to ask how much other Government policies contribute to the phenomenon with which we are faced. We do not know the cause. Therefore I think it is fair for the Social Security Advisory Committee to say that the Government are attacking symptoms and not causes. They say—and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said today—that we need more research. I should like heavily to underline that. We do not know what is the right way to approach this problem until we know why it exists as it does.

Turning to the proposals themselves, perhaps I may say this. I should welcome the move towards a regional system in the response of the Secretary of State to the Social Security Advisory Committee. There are to be different rates in each area. They will be centrally determined. The Government are not altering that. As well, they will be taken from a list of only six rates. Therefore there is not a great deal of flexibility in it.

I support the multi-tier system of distinguishing between a wider variety of different categories of hoard and lodging. However, there is the fear, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has expressed and which as she said, has been widely expressed by all the organisations that are associated with work in this field, that the cash limits which have been set are too low. For example, as I understand the position, in London for ordinary board and lodging the maximum has been cut from £80 to £47.30 for bed and breakfast. The Campaign for Single Homeless People says that only 10 per cent. of bed and breakfast places with single rooms which take homeless people will be within the limit. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can comment upon that.

So far as Newcastle is concerned it is alleged that the bed and breakfast ceiling cut to £37.30 per week means that only one out of 20 hostels currently being used by the local housing advice centre to house homeless people will be within the new limits. This raises the question as to whether prices will come down. There are mixed views about that. Many people feel that that is highly unlikely to happen. If that is so, then I should echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—where do the homeless people go? Should there perhaps be maximum charges placed on landlords for accommodation within certain categories of prescribed standard?

Turning to residential care for the elderly, I want to tell your Lordships that one private home proprietor wrote to Age Concern: It seems to me that many homes looking after very frail, incontinent, disabled older persons cannot possibly run a good home at the £120 per week figure suggested". That comment would seem to be borne out by the calculations of the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors. Certainly it is strongly supported by Age Concern.

There have been fears, which we expressed in an earlier debate, that very elderly people might have to move out of the accommodation in which they were, with most unhappy consequences. The Government have provided—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred to this—transitional protection. Those over pension age in residential care and nursing homes will continue for life to have their charges met at the level of payment in force when the new limits are introduced. The question is whether that level will be indexed. If it is not indexed, it might be expected that since the new rates will be operated, presumably annually, then they will eventually overtake the old rates. However, what happens to people who are caught in the gap? I should like an answer to that question in particular.

The other major factor about the new proposals is the time limit for ordinary board and lodging for those under 26. The fears of many are that the phrase used by the Social Security Advisory Committee may prove to be true—that there will be created a class of rootless young people unable to find permanent accommodation in one place, unable to find a job and obliged by benefit rules to move round constantly.

To summarise what I have been saying, let me say this. Where there is abuse it must be checked. However, the whole exercise appears to be unnecessarily rushed for the reasons I gave. There is undoubtedly widespread concern about the effect of the regulations. The problem is one of numbers rather than costs. However, the cause of the increase in numbers is not known. The Government are therefore treating symptons rather than causes, as the Social Security Advisory Committee says. Much more research is required. The move to a regional system in response to the comments of the Social Security Advisory Committee is welcome but it is limited in flexibility. The limits on the rate of payment would appear to be set too low and there is a danger that the time limit on those under 26 may result in an itinerant army of young unemployed, always on the move. Finally, I would say this. In my view the scheme must be very carefully monitored and should be regarded as purely temporary pending the results of further research.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out so clearly the regulations we now have before us. I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, regarding the age limit on the rate for blind people in residential accommodation. I am relieved to see that in another place on Tuesday the Minister promised to consider the effect that the Government's proposals had on disabled people, mentioning blind people specifically.

However, I feel that it is necessary to really rub in this situation of the blind, because blind people are hit severely by the plan to allow the £170 limit only for those who become physically disabled below pensionable age. Obviously most blind people go blind late in life, and three-quarters of all blind people are over 65. They therefore stand to suffer really badly from this proposed age rule; though the actual numbers of blind people are relatively small, with a total population of about 130,000.

The important thing we ask is that the Government reconsider the proposed treatment of people stricken with blindness in later life. We ask the Government to realise that it may cause some of them who have been in hospital great difficulty when they try to find accommodation at this price when they come out of hospital; for instance, if they are over 60, in the case of women. We hope that the Government may find it possible to allow blind people to qualify for payment towards charges at the rate that applies for physically disabled people.

1.30 p.m.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, it is not the custom, as we know, to oppose regulations in this House. Otherwise, I, for one, feel that the Chamber would have been rather fuller than it is. I should like to express my concern. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for explaining the regulations as succinctly as she has done. I should, however, like to align myself with the two Members who have preceded me. By way perhaps of an olive branch I should like to express my delight that hospices are now coming into the thoughts of the Government. But this whole situation seems to me to be characterised by an "I'm all right Jack" syndrome. I have a feeling that those who have their own home, their own roof, their own job, and their own way of life do not understand the problems at grass roots level of those who have none of those things.

I should like to concentrate my remarks on board and lodgings, hotels, guest houses and private landlords. The social services pay for thousands of people in these types of accommodation. They vary enormously. Some are just slums, some are fairly well kept, perhaps because of the amount of money that is paid to keep these people. I happen to know what I am talking about, as I am sure do other noble Lords. Those taken into the accommodation include people who are unemployed, who are redundant and who have left home. Unemployment is becoming increasingly a reason for the break-up of families. When the man leaves home the wife has to look after the children. He has no money; he has no employment. He comes down to London and tries to find accommodation. I hope that no noble Lord will imagine that I am trying to be in the slightest degree amusing. But there is this saying, is there not, "I will take you for better, for worse; for richer for poorer, but never for lunch." A woman especially when there are children, does not generally want a man under her feet all day. So the man leaves home.

There are also those about whom we know only too well who are now leaving—I shall not say turned out of—psychiatric hospitals and being treated as normal people in society. There is probably nothing wrong with them, except that they add to the numbers of people who have to be catered for. There are also the young couples who want to live together. Sometimes they are very young and have babies. They need accommodation. The dearth of housing, the dearth of accommodation of all sorts, let alone homes, at all prices has to be seen to be believed. I have been told of three particular roads in Brixton. In each road there are 100 houses. Each has been boarded up for quite some time. They are little Victorian houses. There is no apparent reason for them to be uninhabited. Anyone who inquires, I understand, is told that they are to be redeveloped. This, I gather, has been going on for 18 months. A great many people could have been housed in those three roads alone in London.

The Minister stated that there had been dramatic increases in expenditure. There have also been dramatic increases in unemployment. If anyone tells me that unemployment is not the cause of people coming to London, which is the focal point of all the problems we are discussing, I am afraid that I would have to take issue with him, because I happen to know the situation. I would not say that I know the situation as well as the Minister, but I have almost day-to-day contact with people who are are looking for homes and other accommodation.

Why has 29th April been chosen? Why is there such a rush? That date falls at the beginning of what all of us hope will be a spring leading to a summer. In the summer, and beginning even in the spring, we welcome a tremendous number of tourists. Tourists need roofs, too. There are very expensive hotels; there are cheaper hotels; there is board and lodging accommodation, the owners of which during the winter are only too happy to have, at just over £6 a day, some of the people who need roofs in our cities. What will happen after 29th April if someone comes along saying that he will offer more than the social security contribution for that accommodation? Out will go the people who have hitherto had roofs over their heads. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, rightly asked, where are they to go? I hope that the Minister is sincere when she says that there must be a much deeper examination at governmental level of the problems that these people endure. They are the same as us. There is no difference between us and them. Everyone has need of a roof. It is almost their right.

I finish with a tribute to those voluntary organisations whose people work, very often with no pay, to help to find what is often unfortunately temporary accommodation, temporary homes and temporary roofs. They are doing a splendid job. I hey are doing far more than perhaps they are given credit for.

1.38 p.m.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I begin by supporting my noble friend Lady Jeger in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to her new position. I hope that she will bring to these massive problems a fresh mind and a caring approach that is sometimes—no slur is meant against her immediate predecessor—not evident in the documents that emerge from the department. I have great hopes that this situation may now improve with the advent of the noble Baroness. I should also like to support those noble Lords who have spoken so far. It is quite unusual when one can agree with most of the sentiments expressed, from whatever side of the House, so early in the debate. I hope that the significance of that is not lost on the noble Baroness who has just taken over.

Noble Lords who are present in the Chamber today will also recall being in the Chamber on 13th February when we debated the National Health Service and Social Security matters. Many of these issues were raised on that occasion. Indeed, that debate took place before the draft regulations had been published. I can recall saying at that time that I had hoped that the Government would have been able to postpone the issuing of these draft proposals, certainly until after these very important reviews which are taking place, into all aspects of social security and housing benefits. It would have seemed sensible to most of us to have waited until the publication of the findings of those reviews and then to come forward with some permanent and constructive proposals which no doubt could have been made acceptable to most of us in the Chamber. However, that was not to be.

The noble Baroness who preceded me touched on the point about 29th April. There could not have been a worse date on which to introduce these types of massive proposals. The dramatic effect of the tourist industry on all available accommodation of all descriptions in London—and I feel that it is also true of most other cities—must be known, or is it the case (dare I say?) that these people do not seem to care or do not understand? However, it is certainly known to all of the voluntary organisations which have already been mentioned in the Chamber and which operate in this field. Therefore, I am sad that the Government have found it necessary to impose these regulations on that particular date. However, that is not to say that those who are present do not think that the problem is serious and urgent; of course it is. We recognise the seriousness and the urgency. The dramatic increase which the noble Baroness mentioned in her opening remarks has been dealt with by other speakers. Of course it is not due to the fact that they are getting more money, although there was a massive increase in 1983–84 because there had been such a low standard up until then. There had to be a dramatic increase to bring them up to any reasonable standard, and the increase did not quite achieve that. That accounts for a great deal of the increase which the noble Baroness mentioned.

However, the major increase is due to the huge rise in the number of youngsters who are moving about looking for jobs and who are having to leave home. None of us in this Chamber who understands the problems will accept that they do it out of devilment or because they want adventure. That is nonsense. The bulk of the youngsters today are moving out of sheer necessity because conditions at home have become unbearable where there are two, three or four young people and a father or a mother or both, who are unemployed. The situation is absolutely impossible, and people who understand how ordinary folk live will readily agree that the youngsters are in an impossible situation. To say that they are moving out just to roam around and play around with the massive benefits which they allegedly receive, is absolute and utter nonsense and is really a smokescreen to cover what is, in effect, another fairly squalid cost-cutting exercise at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our community.

The noble Baroness mentioned the representations and the consideration that had been given to those representations. I frankly was disappointed with the result of that consideration. If anything, I fear that the draft proposals are in some ways worse than those that we had feared might be introduced when we discussed the consultative process. I am strengthened in that view by the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) whose 43 page report is a fairly comprehensive and scathing indictment of the DHSS proposals. All these people have been appointed by the Government to do this particular job. Their findings are summarised on pages 4 and 5 of the report, where they say: The extraordinary range of representations made to us … are almost united in their concern at many aspects of the proposed changes; but they are are also worried that the proposals make an attempt only to tackle the immediate problem, and do nothing to resolve the underlying difficulties … We doubt, however, whether any satisfactory control can be imposed on the use of supplementary benefit board and lodging accommodation until these issues are faced and dealt with", which is what we have been saying. It goes on: Ministers have accepted that the current proposals may not offer a final solution to the problems they see. In our view"— that is, the view of the SSAC— it is because they tackle the symptoms rather than the causes of growth in costs and numbers, that they are unlikely to provide a long-term solution". That was the view expressed not by anybody on this side of the Chamber, but by a body which is very well respected in all circles throughout the country. That body is expressing doubts.

The new limits set by the DHSS for board and lodgings will mean, in the view of all informed opinion, that there will be far less accommodation available and what is available will be far more likely to be sub-standard. Here again I can only quote a recent newspaper report which was the result of a survey carried out by the Camden branch of CHAR. They surveyed a number of lodging houses in Camden and they found that, under the new charges, only five out of 43 hotels would be available to claimants. The report says, Central London agencies estimate that under the new rules, most of the capital's 10,000 boarders would be homeless within a month of the regulations beginning to bite. So the situation regarding all the voluntary organisations is serious, and these regulations will make it worse.

The new proposals to limit the time that young people can stay in board and lodging, even in their own home area, has caused more concern—if that is possible—among all the organisations involved. Again, the SSAC was quoted by my noble friend Lady Jeger as being concerned that we were about to create a class of rootless young people unable to find accommodation in one place, unable to find a job and obliged by the benefit rules to constantly move around. We have a number of examples of actual cases where this can and will happen within weeks of the new regulations being brought in.

We know that the new limits will clear the way for unscrupulous landlords to increase the exploitation of desperate youngsters. We know from recent reports, too, that the result could be that youngsters will be crammed into inadequate accommodation. At the moment, there is enough over-crowding with two and three youngsters in a room. I understood from a recent television programme that that could be increased to four or five youngsters, or people, sharing one room in inadequate accommodation with the landlord charging these new fees. Therefore, it will do nothing to alleviate the problem; it will only give these unscrupulous landlords yet another lever with which to make even more profit. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness does not care about that. I think that she does care about it, and I hope that she will be able to take that point on board.

Therefore, like others I accept that tough action is necessary in cases where fraud can be proven. We would certainly accept that. But I also say that the Government are moving against the wrong people and in the wrong direction. I should like to quote again from the SSAC document. They say that there is no real evidence of widespread abuse—there is no evidence of the type of horror stories which have been emanating from the department in order to bolster up an exceedingly weak case for these changes. The SSAC say: Anecdote is not a safe basis for legislation, and we therefore sought fuller information from the DHSS on the extent of suspected abuse, both by claimants and proprietors. We were disappointed 'Jut no estimate of the size of the problems could be produced … Where there is evidence of fraud or abuse, the Department already has mechanisms for investigation, and we hope that fraudulent claims will be vigorously pursued". We would all agree with that. However, the evidence of abuse known to us does not convince us that there are substantial grounds for making major changes in regulations on its account alone … We think it is important to remember that the vast majority of claimants are honest, and should not be subject to punitive restrictions. Many are also forced by circumstances beyond their control to live in thoroughly unsatisfactory accommodation". None of us could have put it better than that. These people are acknowledged experts and they themselves say that that would be the effect.

Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two questions which spring directly from those aspects. They are as follows: What are the Government doing to control what landlords charge? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked a similar question. That is an area which seems to have been neglected. Let us tackle the landlords as well as concentrating on what claimants can pay. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen the powers that local authorities have to deal with poor standard bed and breakfast accommodation? Are the Government now at long last prepared to introduce some mandatory powers in that direction, something which many of us have been advocating for a great many years? What are the Government doing about the restrictions, for instance, on furniture grants for those people in accommodation of this kind who are fortunate enough to be able to get permanent accommodation but cannot move in because they cannot afford the necessary furniture to allow them to do so? Will the Government reconsider the resources that are made available to local authorities and housing associations which are prepared to deal with these aspects of the shortage of this kind of accommodation? That solution would certainly be cheaper and certainly provide far better accommodation.

Before I sit down I should like to mention one or two points affecting the elderly because that is another aspect in which I have been involved for a number of years. This report does nothing to ameliorate any of my fears about the effect and the implications for the elderly of these proposals. On the categorisation, of course we welcome what has been done. It would be churlish not to do so; and the question of the hospices has already been mentioned. We all heartily welcome the inclusion of that in the proposals so far as the elderly are concerned. But in the categorisation why is there no category for the elderly mentally infirm despite universal acceptance that those unfortunate people need a higher level of care? They require an additional level of care that is not needed by elderly people in other circumstances. That ought to have been a classification of its own, in my view.

Then the categories themselves apply to the homes, to the buildings and to the kind of home. There does not seem to have been any attempt—and I meant to ask the noble Baroness whether any attempt was made—to match the needs of the residents to the provisions made by any given home. I would have thought we should be a little more caring in trying to match the needs of the residents to the provisions for the homes rather than just a blanket categorisation of these homes. Then we have and we welcome the assurance given that those under pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue for life to have their charges met at the level of payment in force when the new limits are introduced. That is good; but could the noble Baroness give us an assurance that any inflationary increase will also be met? It is causing a great deal of concern among the elderly and among the people who care for them. It is one thing to say that they will get this at the level at which the payment is introduced, but will it be increased in line with inflation as time goes on? That is an important consideration.

Again—and I am sorry about the questions that I am asking the noble Baroness but they are prompted by reading the documentation—will she tell us, given that the board and lodging areas have been devised so as to operate variable limits for those who require other forms of board and lodging, why has not an equivalent flexibility applied to the homes? It would seem that a national figure had been agreed for homes throughout the country. There is not the same flexibility in variable charges that have been applied even to the other regulations; and why have not the homes been categorised or at least allowed that kind of flexibility in the same way?

Finally, does the noble Baroness accept that if the limits are imposed, some of the better homes may well be forced to close? Again there is evidence that the better proprietors of some of these homes say they doubt whether they will be able to carry on with the new limits and new figures provided. That can only mean that added pressure will now be put on all kinds of people to take the residents from those homes into the hospitals, thus transferring the financial burden from the DHSS to the NHS; and that cannot make sense in anyone's language unless the sole exercise is to prove that the DHSS can cut costs, and that would seem fairly squalid. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me asking so many questions. I have left out a great many more that perhaps we may deal with at some later stage, but I should be grateful if she could answer those that I have asked.

1.55 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, expressed the concern of the British Refugee Council that the present regulations contain no specific provision for refugees in this country. I should like to enlarge on that in the light of my own experience. The noble Baroness the Minister, when she introduced these regulations, said that they would contain protection for the vulnerable. What section of the community is more vulnerable than the refugees? When I had the honour to introduce a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House on 27th March, I dealt with the suffering of the refugees both abroad and here and I have no intention of enlarging on that now except to say that I am closely in touch with several refugees. I am currently giving asylum to two of them, and one of these people has come from a most appalling background. He lost both parents in terrible circumstances, and there are many others like that—though not all of them, of course—who have come from a background of almost unimaginable persecution and suffering.

What happens? They come to this country. I am quite prepared to concede that they have not all the right of asylum here. I will not go into that, but they come here bewildered and perplexed. Many of them cannot speak our language. They do not know where to go. They have no friends. What is to happen to people like that? It is really quite appalling.

There are two aspects of this regulation which have been mentioned by other speakers but I should like to deal with them specifically in regard to the refugees. One is that unless these regulations are altered, as I see it and as the British Refugee Council sees it, they will lead to the closure of hostels operated specifically for refugees. Can one believe it? The holding of asylum-seekers for long periods at immigration centres and the housing of refugees in slum accommodation in London may also stem from these regulations, as we see it. Possibly I am wrong there.

The second aspect, again, has been touched on by other speakers and is perhaps the most disturbing of all. That is that those under the age of 26—and pretty well all the refugees who come to this country are in that category—are obliged to move to another area every two or eight weeks according to the regulations. The one thing these refugees need—and I hope all your Lordships will accept this—and the one thing they must have is stability. Nothing could be more damaging to them psychologically than the need to move on. They get to know their landlady, they get to know where to do their shopping, they start courses. What is to happen to them? Every few weeks they have to move on. Surely that is totally unacceptable.

So I would ask the noble Baroness the Minister to look again at these regulations in the light of the special needs of the refugees, and I would say that it strikes me as quite incomprehensible that no special provisions are being incorporated, bearing in mind the enormous concern for refugees, both abroad and at home, exercised by such bodies as the United Nations High Commission for refugees, the British Refugee Council, the Ockenden Venture and many others. They are all working in a wonderful way to help these refugees, and then we have this appalling regulation which, so far as I can see—and I hope I am wrong—totally ignores their needs.

Perhaps I may put to the noble Baroness the Minster in conclusion three suggestions which have been submitted by the British Refugee Council, and ask her whether it is possible to formulate some sort of amendment on these lines. First, a special category of hostel should be established within the regulations for the reception and initial settlement of refugees and asylum-seekers for which a maximum weekly rate of £110 would be available.

Secondly, a realistic economic rate for board and lodging should be established regionally, and in central London this would probably be about £110. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, may I propose that there be incorporated for refugees and asylum-seekers under 26 a clear statement of exemption from the need to move every two to eight weeks. I look forward to a sympathetic reply from the noble Baroness the Minister.

2.2 p.m.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I shall try to keep my remarks as short as possible because time is moving on. I think I should declare an interest because I want to look at the regulations from the point of view of physically handicapped people who live in voluntary homes, in homes run by voluntary organisations, and I work for one of these organisations. Yesterday, by telephone, I passed most of my questions through to my noble friend, so I hope that she will be able to answer them. If she cannot answer them immediately, perhaps she could write to me.

It is my understanding that the number of physically handicapped people in homes who are already in receipt of attendance allowance is only about 50 per cent. When 29th April comes will all those who are not already in receipt of attendance allowance have to apply for that allowance? If that is the case, does the Department of Health and Social Security have enough trained staff to deal with the obviously considerable influx of applications? I understand that at the moment an application, where there is no appeal, takes from 10 to 12 weeks to deal with. If there is an appeal it could take at least six months.

If physically disabled applicants have to make an application for this allowance will they be able to draw supplementary benefit up to the total of £170 a week until their application is finally dealt with? If not, some of them are going to be in considerable difficulty. They may have to rely purely on the homes to fund them, and not all the homes will be able to do so. Some homes are run with a very small financial reserve.

I should like to ask whether physically disabled people getting their supplementary allowance in this respect will have to collect this themselves from the post office, cash their giro cheques there, bearing in mind that some of them are unable to speak properly, will not be able to get themselves to the post office, and could be in considerable danger from potential muggers on their way back. There is also the question that where, as now, the voluntary home is paid directly by the local authority it is quite possible that a disabled person with £170 or more in his hand passing the shops on the way home will spend a proportion of this money, and therefore will not be able to pay for his board, lodging and keep. What is going to happen here?

On the question of the topping up finance, is the local authority which currently sponsors the physically disabled person responsible for providing this, or is it the local authority in the area where the home is situated? This could mean considerable expense for some local authorities, and sudden expense. Where there is a social work input to homes of this sort is this to be paid for by the currently sponsoring local authorities, or will this all devolve on the local authorities in which the home is situated? At the moment it is part of the amount paid by the sponsoring authority.

During the transitional period—I have already mentioned this, but it is an important point—how will the voluntary homes deal with the disabled person who is not getting his full allowances? Are they going to be asked to keep him for nothing? Is one of the local authorities going to pay? That needs questioning. Current local authority funding includes a contribution towards clothing, which is especially important for some physically disabled people to prevent such things as chaffing; training of the care staff; holidays with care; and the retention of a place in the home should handicapped people have to go to hospital for any length of time. If their place is not held in the home for them, when they come out of hospital there is nowhere for them to go. Someone has to pay for that place while they are away.

Would my noble friend be prepared to arrange for members of her staff to discuss with representatives from the NCVO problems of this sort before the regulations come into effect at the end of this month? If that is impracticable because of the Easter holidays, can she make such arrangements as soon as possible thereafter? It is very important that her staff talk to those who are running the homes for physically handicapped people.

In the case of a dual registration where a home is registered both as a nursing home and as a residential care home there appears to be no provision for topping-up the finance of any physically handicapped person living in that home. That is quite ridiculous. Perhaps my noble friend can give an assurance that this topping-up will be provided; or, if it is not provided in the regulations, perhaps she will arrange for new regulations to be brought in, also dating from 29th April, so that that small number of physically handicapped people will not be financially out of pocket.

There is another point. At the moment the allowance for a physically handicapped person applies only if he was handicapped before he reached pensionable age. The allowances are less for those who reach pensionable age and then become handicapped. Why? What is the financial benefit to someone of getting multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease after he starts drawing his pension? It is totally illogical. This is an age at which such people need more money so that others can look after them in any case. Not everyone who is of pensionable age becomes disabled purely through age or becoming infirm. We can all get diseases at different ages. This winter Members of this House over normal pensionable age have not been here because they have had 'flu. There is nothing to stop them getting 'flu just as there is nothing to stop them getting multiple sclerosis. The number may be lower because many people get it earlier; but it is a total anomaly.

Finally, with the change in funding arrangements it would appear that the responsibility for looking after physically handicapped people is being taken away from local authorities and given entirely to my noble friend's department, with the slight exception of topping-up finance. Up to now I have always understood that local authorities were responsible for finding suitable accommodation for their physically handicapped residents. Will this continue, or is a totally new regime to start from the end of this month?

2.12 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the noble Baroness to her responsibilities. In particular I hope that she will never again have as bad a brief as this to defend. I can reassure her about one thing; she will never have a worse one. I can also wish her something more. I wish her as much moderation and courtesy for all her time on the Front Bench as she has experienced in the course of this afternoon. Frankly, it has been quite amazing. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has refrained from asking many of the questions which he had. This is merely a sign of the really appalling unpreparedness in regard to the regulations which are before your Lordships' House. I shall come to that point again in a moment.

I am in agreement with my party and the Alliance spokesman on this subject. Indeed, I agree with all noble Lords in what they have said, with the exception of the luckless Minister. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, on what I thought was an extraordinarily good and telling speech. The inadequacy of the limits has already been discussed and I do not want to go over the main issues, though I should say that Church Action on Poverty—on whose behalf to a certain extent, as well as on my own, I speak—feels fairly strongly about the problems raised by the regulations. The problems raised in my own old borough of Camden, for example, have already been raised. There is the problem of housing people not just in the lush end of Hampstead, but also in the not so lush end which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, knows better than I do.

It is not just the problem which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has already mentioned, the Church of Scotland is going to find with housing its own old people who are already at these levels. These are matters which go to the root of this particular matter.

The question has been raised, I think by my noble friend Lord Banks and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as to whether the present limits for the elderly are indexed. It was produced with rather a flourish, I thought, in the announcement which we had previously that they would not be altered. The answer is—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for writing to me on this matter—that they are not indexed. Therefore, that particular assurance is of no use whatever and, indeed, may be a matter of considerable worry and concern to a very great many elderly people in lodgings at the moment.

There are three special points about which I should like to ask questions—points which either have not been raised or, if they have been raised, have only just been touched upon. There is the question about the family with a 16-year-old child. When the child becomes 16 and the family is allowed to stay in the lodgings that they have, does the 16-year-old child have to start this peripatetic life, moving about every three or four weeks from area to area? Is this really so? If it is so, is that what the Government want? Is that how the Government care for the families among us? And, if not, what are they going to do about it? Then there is the question about young persons who are claiming supplementary benefit and who are studying part-time. This, again, is something which the Government, along with all of us, would surely wish to encourage. Of course, those young people must be prepared to give up their study if they are offered a job. But so long as they have not got a job, surely they should be encouraged as much as possible. If the young persons live in board and lodgings, they will be forced to give up the course and to move on to a different travel-to-work area after two, four or eight weeks, according to the area, or attempt to live on a non-householder's allowance. What this boils down to is that many young people will be denied the chance to obtain the extra education which is currently available to them. I cannot believe that is really what the Government want, but I suspect that that is what the Government have asked for.

Thirdly, and lastly as far as these questions are concerned, young people in part-time work whose earnings are topped up with supplementary benefit will also be adversely affected. If persons work for three days a week, they might sign on and claim unemployment benefit and/or supplementary benefit for the days of the week they are not working. Where the claimant lives in board and lodging, this will apparently no longer be possible. The person will have to live on a severely reduced income or give up the work and move on after two, four or eight weeks in order to find new board and lodging in a different travel-to-work area, thus to maintain the entitlement to a full board and lodging allowance. Again, it is impossible to believe that this is what the Government want.

We know that at the back of this there are real and deeper problems. My noble friend Lord Banks has already spoken (as have other noble Lords) about the real problem of housing in this particular context. At the back of this is a real need for a new housing policy. I say "a new housing policy" not implying that there is one at the moment, because there certainly is not a housing policy about building houses. That is for absolute certain.

I think we are getting to the end of this debate, but there is one last question which must be raised. It is—and it has been mentioned already—the constitutional point that your Lordships do not challenge regulations such as these if they have already been passed in another place. If orders come up in this kind of condition, the position will quickly become intolerable and impossible. Your Lordships cannot be asked to pass orders in the state in which speakers on all Benches have shown this one to be. It is a mockery of Parliament and of your Lordships' House.

I commend to all the Front-Benchers, and particularly those on this side of the House, that they take this problem aboard very seriously. Had it not been the tail-end of Maundy Thursday—what an unfortunate day!—and the last day before the Easter holiday, I do not think we would have had very much difficulty in finding enough Back-Benchers of all parties who would throw this out. Being the day that it is, and the conventions being what they are, I think it is probably just enough that we serve the strongest possible notice on the Government and on the authorities dealing with the procedures of this House that this is an intolerable order to have been put before us and that we will not put up with it.

2.21 p.m.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily impressive debate. I do not intend to prolong the debate or to dilute it but I think the Government must have taken note of the strength of feeling that has been expressed on all sides of the House. I personally do not recall a debate of this length or quality on social security regulations in your Lordships' House.

I have only three very brief points I want to make to the noble Baroness, since she was good enough to write to me. The first is a general point on the level of the maximum figures for the various types of home, which are £10 less than those which were in the consultative document. I have not yet heard any adequate reason from the Government as to why they have chosen the lower figure rather than the higher ones which appeared in the consultative document.

Turning to the letter which the noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me on 1st April, I want to refer in the first place to the attendance allowance, which was very ably and knowledgeably touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I think I understood her to believe—perhaps she will correct me if I am wrong—that a supplementary benefit allowance equivalent to attendance allowance was going to be built into the nursing home figures. That I take it—perhaps she will again correct me if I am wrong—accounts for the difference between £170 in a residential home and £198.60 in a nursing home. Again, I understand that is a flat cut-off rate and there are no arrangements for topping-up of the type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Is that the case?

What is to be the position in the case of homes where the top limit is £110 and, in another type, £138.60? Is it the case that both types of home attendance allowance, where conceded, would be deducted from the amount payable for that elderly person? If that is the case, is it going to be possible for those elderly people to stay in those homes?

Finally, an important point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, and it is a point to which the noble Baroness also referred in her letter: the transitional protection for existing claimants. In her letter to me, and, I think, to my noble friend Lord Beaumont, the noble Baroness wrote: There are no plans to index-link these payments. We regard the new limits we are setting as reasonable and sufficient to allow people to find the accommodation they need. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say in her speech that the current levels will be left in place for 12 months with a review before November 1986—

Baroness Trumpington

Yes, my Lords.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, was she referring to that particular arrangement for existing claimants? Is it the case that the position will be reviewed before November 1986, and would it be the Government's intention to introduce index-linking from that date? If that were to be the case, there would be some alleviation, although the present sums would have run for some 18 months and might well have fallen behind the rate of inflation. However, we must be thankful for small mercies, and, if that is what the noble Baroness is saying on behalf of the Government, I should like to have her confirmation of it.

Lord McNair

My Lords, may I have half a minute in which to support with all the force that I can what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, about the refugees? Also, may I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, what may be the easiest question that she has had today? As she is well aware, the way we look after refugees and asylum-seekers is a Home Office matter. Has there been consultation between the DHSS and the relevant Ministers in the Home Office and the British Refugee Council? If there has not been such consultation, can she please promise that there will be before these regulations come into force?

2.26 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, may I thank those of your Lordships who have been kind enough to say nice things; but quite obviously the honeymoon is over. May I also say that when this act finishes and the curtain goes down I return for Act II. Therefore, I may be forced to write to many of your Lordships, because I have a sheaf of paper equivalent to a five-hour debate on this subject. However, I really understand the deep feelings that this whole subject gives rise to as expressed in your Lordships' remarks and questions. I too feel very deeply on this subject, and I totally reject, despite the nice things which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, his remarks about these regulations and about the Government's allegedly over-hasty production of them.

If I may turn immediately to the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked: would there not be, as the SSAC report, the possibility of creating a homeless and rootless group of young people. I understand the concern that has been expressed, but this argument rather suggests that there are no social problems created by the present arrangements. The present rules have given the wrong signals to many young people, effectively encouraging them to leave their families and spend long periods in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation in areas where they have not been able—and occasionally have not wanted—to find work.

What we are proposing would not hinder the genuine job-seeker. The periods we have allowed are reasonable to see whether work is available. The exemption categories and the hostel provisions give protection for those who need to be in board and lodging. The proposal is to restrict the period of payment as a boarder. At the end of this period, claimants may not necessarily decide to move to another area as a boarder. Some will no doubt be able to stay in the same accommodation and be assessed at the non-householder rate or even as householders. Some may decide to return to their parents or live with relatives or friends. Some may find rented accommodation and some, one hopes, will find work.

It was said that four weeks is not long enough. As we indicate in the Government's response, the experience of the Manpower Services Commission is that clerical or manual work, where available, can be obtained within a week, and casual work can be claimed within a matter of days. We have set what we believe are quite reasonable periods for exploring the jobs market in a particular area. We want to avoid the position of young people settling down on a long-term basis in expensive board and lodging, which they could not possibly afford if they were in work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked what had caused the increased numbers. My reply to them is that the number of young people claiming supplementary benefit for board and lodging had increased by 60 per cent. in 1983, with estimated rises of over 50 per cent. in 1984 and 1985. These increases cannot be explained on the basis of rising unemployment or increased homelessness. But it is clear that supplementary benefits have been attracting claimants to that form of accommodation, and indeed these payments have encouraged landlords. For example, 100 new establishments have opened in Reading in the past six months or so. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: why the cut-off point at age 25? We were concerned about numbers in board and lodging and we did not want to disturb those who had settled long-term in board and lodging. The consultative document did not specify any particular age cut-off. We looked at the position carefully and after much consideration decided that an upper age limit of 25 would be appropriate in all circumstances. This limitation was welcomed by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked whether the new limits will apply to the home or to the individual claimant. Under the new registration arrangements each home will be required to identify the number of places it provides for each of the following client groups—the elderly; the mentally ill; those dependent on alcohol or drugs; the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped. Local offices will shortly be seeking information on this. Where a home provides for more than one type of client the limit payable to the individual claimant will be the one appropriate to his or her client group. If the status of the client was uncertain, we would expect the local office to check the details with the proprietor of the home or the local health authority as appropriate.

I was asked about multiple handicap. The proposed new limits are intended to follow the new registration arrangements and reflect the client groups identified for registration purposes. The limit payable for a multiply-handicapped person, for example, would he dependent on whether the home in which he lived was registered as a home for the mentally or the physically handicapped. It has been the department's aim to follow the classifications agreed by the proprietors and social services departments rather than to require DHSS staff to make difficult decisions about claimants with special needs. Although individual assessment of this type would probably be the best solution to this problem, our local office staff are not competent to undertake it.

The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said that surely the best solution would be to fit the payment to the needs of the individual. Obviously, as I have said, an assessment system which identified the type of care appropriate for the individual and whether the amount being charged for care and accommodation was reasonable might well be the solution. But I have to repeat that our local staff cannot have the expertise to perform this type of assessment.

The question of topping-up for the elderly was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There are no plans at present to allow this provision for those in homes for the elderly, although this will be kept under review as the SSAC advised. There is in the main adequate local authority provision for this group. The concession that we propose for the younger client groups is in recognition of the need for higher cost care, sometimes above the level which supplementary benefit can cover.

The nursing homes supplement is mean, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The nursing home supplement reflects the average difference between residential and nursing homes, but it will be kept under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what the DHSS does to stop payments to landlords advertising for claimants. Payment is made to the claimant, not to the landlord, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The DHSS cannot refuse benefits simply because the landlord is advertising for claimants. This is why we are acting in this way—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Exceptional, my Lords?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I could hear the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying "exceptional". I can think of cases where the benefit might disappear into the "local" the same day it was received. I leave that to the imagination of the noble Lord.

My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to the blind. I am aware of and understand the points that have been made by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. As my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox had noted, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security indicated in another place that he would look closely at the representations now being made by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I hope that both noble Baronesses will be happy with that.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, we shall see.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked why it has been decided to restrict the limit for the physically disabled to those whose condition arose before they reached pension age. It was always our thinking that the limit should apply to the younger client group; to those, in effect, who are significantly disabled, rather than those who have become increasingly frail as the natural accompaniment of old age.

Coming to the question of refugees, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I am aware of the work done by the British Refugee Council, and particularly the projects at Camden and Brixton. The council has written to my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and he hopes to reply shortly. Under the regulations the British Refugee Council's two main projects would be subject to the new hostel limit of £70, with some cases, at least, eligible for the extension of £16.15. I understand that the council considered that this may cause difficulties. It is not our intention to harm the worthwhile work of hostels where this can be avoided. We have already indicated that we will carefully monitor the impact of the proposals on the financial position of hostels. While I clearly cannot make any promises, we shall look very closely at the circumstances of the council's hostels.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, as an officer of the British Refugee Council, may I ask whether the noble Baroness or one of her colleagues would be prepared to receive a deputation in order fully to understand the very real problems which the council faces and which have been touched upon in this debate?

Baroness Trumpington

Gladly, my Lords; I wish to find out as much as I can on that subject, as on every other subject. I am attempting to learn as speedily as I can. However, I have not quite finished on this important question of the refugees. I believe that the British Refugee Council took part in the Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation process. Nevertheless, I should be glad to meet a deputation.

As regards exemption categories, where a person has entered board and lodging under the guidance of a voluntary body such as the British Refugee Council as part of a programme for rehabilitation or resettlement, the boarder restriction does not apply.

I am unable to answer the last point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, but I shall write to him. If he has any other points which I have not answered—and this applies to all noble Lords—I hope he will let me know.

The question of inspection, which I agree is important, was raised by my noble friend Lady Macleod and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. Local authorities have a wide range of powers and some duties relating to the enforcement of standards in houses in multiple occupation. They have powers to require improvements in the management and physical conditions of HMOs. They can require the provision of standard amenities and adequate means of escape from fire and can limit the number of occupants in HMOs. They can make a control order which allows them to take over the management of a HMO to protect the safety, welfare and health of persons living there. That is a very important point.

Index linking was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as was the question of taking account of inflation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, I have written to him on this point saying that it will not be index-linked, but the new limits may, as I have already made clear, be uprated within 12 months of coming into operation.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean uprated, or does she mean reviewed?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have tried to cut this short. The amount to be protected will be that in payment on the date the changes come into operation. This will last until payments under the new limits become more favourable. There are no plans to index-link these payments. We regard the new limits we are setting as reasonable and sufficient to allow people, even in the area of residential homes for the elderly, to find the accommodation they need. Therefore, we do not think that it would be reasonable to increase payments which have been made in excess of those new limits. The new limits will be reviewed within 12 months.

Pressing on, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Macleod for her welcome of our proposals for the hospices. She asked whether other proposals were not hitting the unemployed when it was not their fault. We are concerned that the benefit system should not encourage or entice young people to move away from their families before they are ready to do so. We want to prevent high board and lodging payments—in some cases £80 or more a week—acting as a work disincentive. It is no service to trap impressionable young people in this type of accommodation. We are concerned to secure greater equity between those on benefits and other young people in work. We want to ensure that board and lodging payments go to those who need them. That is why we have drawn up wide exemption categories and we have allowed reasonable periods for people to find work in particular areas. I think that I shall write to my noble friend on the other points that she raised.

I must just pick up the point about the tourist trade which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend. I understand their concern, but I would point out that much of the accommodation has been specifically made available because of the availability of supplementary benefit payments for many young people. We believe that that accommodation will still be available at the new limits. What has to be recognised is that the DHSS has a major influence on the charging practices of the market.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the attendance allowance and the nursing home supplement. I am grateful to my noble friend for his warning. I shall probably have to reply later to other points that he raised, but there seems to be some confusion over the attendance allowance and nursing home supplement. As I have already explained, attendance allowance will be taken into account for those in residential care and nursing homes. The supplement of £28.60 which is added to the new residential care limits to make the new nursing home limits is not connected in any way with attendance allowance, except that the amount is the same. There will be no need to claim the nursing home supplementary separately, as it will form part of the normal supplementary benefit assessment for those in nursing homes.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, my noble friend may recall that I asked her whether it would be necessary for those physically disabled people in voluntarily run homes who are not currently in receipt of attendance allowance to claim it, or can that be done in bulk for all of them?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the answer is, no. I think that 19 minutes in reply is enough to try your Lordships' patience. I shall write to noble Lords. It has been an extremely interesting debate. I said in my original remarks that a review would be carried out. We realised that there was concern. The Government must save money in order to put it to better use in other services. If certain things turn out not to be exactly right, no doubt the Government will look at them again.

On Question, Motion agreed to.