HL Deb 17 December 1985 vol 469 cc703-6

5.58 p.m.

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the position concerning supplementary benefit board and lodging payments following the Court of Appeal decision last Friday. As the House will be aware, the court upheld Mr. Justice Mann's decision in the Divisional Court on 31 st July that there was no power to make two paragraphs of the regulations passed by the House in April. The court rejected a cross appeal that the Social Security Advisory Committee had not been properly consulted before the regulations were made.

"The House will wish to know that the Government do not intend to appeal further. We shall take steps to identify from our records those cases in which arrears may be due because we did not meet the full charge, and to pay these arrears as soon as possible. To this end, we have sought and received from the court today further guidance on how such arrears should be assessed.

"I should make it clear that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging. Those payments are covered by the fresh regulations agreed by the House last month which came into effect on 25th November."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement, which is an endeavour to explain why a third attempt has been necessary before the Government could get themselves within the law. This is a Government who preach law and order to all their citizens and then do not do so well themselves.

The noble Baroness comes here as a brave, battling Boadicea making a Statement. The only trouble is that both the High Court and Court of Appeal have chopped off her chariot wheels, and we have to ask where she will go next. The Statement says that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging, but can the noble Baroness confirm that on 13th December 1985 the High Court gave Camden Council permission to appeal against this third lot of board and lodging regulations? I am wondering whether the Government have any plans for dealing with another rebuff from the High Court of this country.

Secondly, I want to express our agreement and pleasure—if I may use that overrated word on this side—that the Government are not intending to appeal further on the present case; though an appeal by the department to the House of Lords would have been a rather interesting exercise which I think some of us would have enjoyed.

I should like to raise another point. On 21st November when we debated this issue I pointed out to the noble Baroness that a copy of a letter which I had which was being sent to claimants telling them about the need to move on after specified times did not set out the geography of the area from which they had to move. This has caused some problems among young people who have had these letters telling them that they cannot stay in the area where they are staying without telling them the area to which they can move. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has had time to re-write that letter and to do something to help people to know the geographical limitations without having to spend £7 buying the Stationery Office book which contains the information and these maps.

Can the Minister, who has promised to identify cases in which arrears may be due, give us any idea of the amount of money involved? Are we talking about millions, or hundreds of thousands? Can the Minister tell us roughly how much is involved?

I need clarification on this last point because I am getting many queries from people in great need. Can the Minister confirm that the present regulations last only until 1986? What steps will the Government take—although this may have to wait for another day—to deal with the causes of these problems: lack of jobs and lack of housing for young people?

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for coming back to us once again on this fraught subject. We welcome the statement that the Government are to identify those who are entitled to arrears of payment. But how are they going to do it? How are the Government going to identify claimants, a number of whom have disappeared from the system owing to the Government's illegal action? Will they ask any of the voluntary bodies to help them to publicise the position or identify these people? I am thinking of bodies such as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. If so, will they privide the money to help those bodies to do so?

As the noble Baroness pointed out, the real trouble is that all this technical and serious breaking of the law by the Government is distracting us from the real problem. When will the Government look at the alternatives to their present policy? For instance, when are they going to look at steps which are necessary along with the present policy, such as the licensing of establishments and relating charges to the conditions which apply in them? As it is, the illegal April regulations have encouraged unscrupulous landlords to put more beds into rooms and decrease comfort and conditions in so many of these lodging places.

Finally, when will the Government carry out a serious review of homelessness among young people? We can be thankful to the Government that this scandal has brought to the attention of the general public the fact that there is a very real and escalating problem in this field. It is quite clear that the Government's actions so far have not in any way dealt with the situation. Is it not time that we looked at the whole question in detail? There has not been a serious review of homelessness among the young for 10 years; and the position is very different now.

As the noble Baroness comes back to the Dispatch Box month after month to repeat different variations on this theme I cannot help feeling that the Government are floundering in a sea of ignorance, and I am forced to say that they also lack compassion. However, if they could deal with the ignorance, we would be at least one further step forward.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. They will understand when I say that I feel rather like those people at a football match who sing, "Here we go, here we go, here we go." This is the third time we have discussed this matter.

I shall deal with the appeal which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about: It is quite true that Camden Council has applied to the High Court for judicial review. The hearing is scheduled for 24th February. I cannot comment on that matter because it is sub judice. The effect of the judgment relates only to arrears for the period between 29th April and 24th November. Current benefit entitlement is not at issue. Neither are things which have been brought up in the past, such as homes and hostels. They are not affected. It is not possible to assess the cost of the judgment at this stage. It depends on how many boarders were liable for charges above the limits and how high charges were.

We have already improved the letter to claimants about their position, and we shall look again to see whether it can be further improved with regard to the geographical position.

The financial and time limits on current claims are not affected. There must be some limits on the amounts that taxpayers are expected to finance. We believe that those put out in the November regulations are reasonable. We are committed to a review in the first half of 1986, and to any resultant changes at the time of the July uprating.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has used this occasion once again to fly his various kites which have nothing to do with the question which we are actually discussing.

However, let me say in reply to one of the points which he raised that we shall identify cases from our records. We have made sure that no case papers have been destroyed.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I too, should like to rise to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. It is true to say that there has been a great deal of discussion about the financial implications of these board and lodging regulations as well as their legal implications. I should like to ask the Minister whether there has been any consideration of the democratic rights of the individuals affected, particularly with reference to their ability to vote for representatives who will represent them?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I can only say that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his interesting observation.