HL Deb 17 July 1985 vol 466 cc815-25

7.50 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1985 laid before your Lordships' House on 26th June be approved.

The first part of these regulations is concerned with the financial limits rather than the time limits for board and lodging and increases the flexibility of transitional protection arrangements set out in the original regulations. Those arrangements provided for 13 weeks' transitional protection of the charge being met immediately prior to 29th April 1985 for those aged 16 to 25 who came within the categories exempt from the time limits. Under these amending regulations the 13 weeks can be extended at the Secretary of State's discretion for particular cases or classes of case.

The second part of the regulations extends the categories of cases which are exempt from the time limits on boarder status to cover those young people who are living with their parents or step-parents in board and lodging accommodation. It was never the intention to exlude this category from protection. Unfortunately, the original regulations did not cover this point. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, (who I fear is not here today) among others, for drawing particular attention to this point.

We are aware, for example, that the lack of this exemption has been causing anxiety in the refugee community where many young refugees live with their parents in board and lodging accommodation. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this further exemption and will be pleased to know that arrangements have been made for ex-gratia payments until the regulations come into operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has, I know, been particularly concerned about the position of refugees. He will, I hope, by now have received a letter from me with a copy of a letter sent this week to the Director of the British Refugee Council by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Security. The reason that I wrote to the noble Lord was that he wrote to me. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for not sending him copies of the letters to which I have just referred. I assure him that no offence was intended and I hope that none was taken.

To continue, we were aware of difficulties being caused for refugees in one establishment in Clapham. I understand that the local office has been in contact both with the local authority and with the British Refugee Council and the position of these young Vietnamese refugees is now secured.

The British Refugee Council and several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, have pointed to the potential problem of some refugees and asylum seekers identifying themselves as exempt under the existing exemption categories. They have suggested an extension of the exemption categories specifically to cover all refugees and asylum seekers and we are considering this both urgently and sympathetically.

The regulations also provide for greater flexibility in the area of exemption cagetories. As my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security said in another place on 2nd July when these regulations were discussed, we believe that our original list of exemptions generally covers those vulnerable young people who have a real and genuine need to be in board and lodging accommodation for more than a short time. Nevertheless, we want to be able to move quickly to cover other categories should it prove necessary. The regulations therefore enable the Government to extend the scope of the exemptions if it is clearly shown that there are others to whom the time limits should not apply.

I should advise noble Lords that these regulations are being made under the urgency provisions so that their wholly beneficial effect can be introduced as soon as possible. They were not, therefore, referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee before being laid but were submitted immediately after. The committee has indicated that because of the beneficial nature of the regulations it has decided that it does not wish them referred to it for report.

An important purpose in these further regulations is to give additional flexibility to respond as quickly as possible to any other cases where a need for exemption is shown. As has already been announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security in another place, we have already identified two categories where we consider it would be appropriate to use the new power straight away. First, we propose an exemption covering ex-foster children living with their former foster parents. Noble Lords will recall that this point was raised in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we are grateful to him for bringing this matter to our attention.

Secondly, we propose to extend the exemptions to include young people on bail where the operation of the regulations would otherwise conflict with the terms of their bail. An example might be where there was a requirement to remain in the area. I should like to remind the House of the principal reasons for the new board and lodging regulations introduced from 29th April. The changes were necessary to control escalating expenditure and to curb abuses. The figures are well-known but worth repeating. Expenditure on ordinary board and lodging rose from £52 million in 1979 to an estimated £380 million in 1984. The number of ordinary board and lodging cases rose from 49,000 to an estimated 139,000 over the same period. There was also widespread criticism that young people were too easily able to settle in such accommodation at the public expense at levels of charges above what could be afforded if they were in work.

No responsible Government could have allowed the escalating cost to continue. But in seeking to check the growth we are determined to get the balance right and safeguard those who need protection. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these regulations before the House today which are beneficial and indicate the Government's willingness to make changes where the need is shown. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has introduced the changes. On these Benches—the Benches on either side are not full at the moment…—we totally oppose any abuse of the system; but I must remind your Lordships that we still do not think that the Government are dealing with abuses in the best possible way. In order to deal with some young people who have taken advantage of the previous situation, the Government have put many other vulnerable young people in great difficulties by the overall rules. I have never been able to understand why those who abuse the situation could not have been caught under previous rules such as those which insist that people must genuinely be seeking work if they are to get benefit. But perhaps tonight is not the time to go into that.

I shall not say to the noble Baroness, "We told you so", but many most concerned and experienced voluntary bodies took the same view as we did, including the Social Security Advisory Committee. I should like to cheer up the noble Baroness. I was the other night reading an old essay of Emerson and I thought of her. It contained this phrase: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little statesmen and philosophers and divines". I am glad that she is not sticking to a foolish consistency but is accepting that there should be changes.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I interrupt the noble Baroness in this good-humoured moment by quoting once again the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: We who have no knowledge become instant experts".

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. This may be a good-humoured exchange, but I must spoil the atmosphere a little by asking one or two questions. Article 2(2) states: unless in any particular case or class of case the Secretary of State determines that such a period shall be extended". I am not quite clear how this will work. On what kind of basis will the Secretary of State make such determination? Will there be a long delay while he is thinking about these matters? Will claimants have to write straight to the Secretary of State, if they are turned down by local officers, so that they can ask the Secretary of State direct? What is to be the channel of communication between disgruntled claimants and the Secretary of State? I should be very glad if the Minister could tell us a little more about how this amendment, which we welcome in principle, is to work in practice.

8 p.m.

We understand that there is discretion to extend the 13-week period, which we certainly welcome. However, again we wonder on what criteria this discretion will be exercised and how the individual claimants who want help under this discretion will identify themselves. Will they have to identify themselves, or will they be identified by some higher authority? There have been some cases quoted in another place where young people who would seem to have been exempted under the rules have in fact not realised that they were liable to be exempted or have not been informed that they could he exempted. Cases were quoted of an unstabilised epileptic and of a diabetic who needed daily injections and who certainly should not have been sleeping rough, with his need for clean surroundings for syringes and drugs.

I wonder whether we can have these matters sorted out a little more clearly. I have here a copy of a letter which is sent out to young people in this position. The letter goes to people aged 25 and under. In my view it is not very clearly worded, but it certainly encloses with it a list of exemptions for which young people should apply. This is rather difficult, because it seems to me that it means that the young person has himself to identify his need. One of the exemptions is that he is mentally ill. What is to happen if this young man or woman has been in a mental hospital and has then been sent out, having been told that he or she is cured and is to go back and live in the community? I am not sure that many young people in this position would want to say that they are mentally handicapped, because that has to be a self-indentifying disability. In fact, if they have been told that they are cured and that they must go out and get on with things, they might well need a period of rehabilitation.

Also, the definition of people who are physically disabled, which is also on this list of 11 points, seems to me to be very unclear. I have mentioned cases of epilepsy and diabetes. Does "physically disabled" mean someone who is a registered disabled person, or does it mean simply someone who feels that they are poorly or who can find a doctor to say that they are poorly? I also want to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether copies of this information are available in any language other than English.

The letter also states to people who want to appeal: If you want to appeal you must write to us". It does not say, as I would wish it could be more friendly and say, "If you want to appeal, come and see us". There are many very vulnerable young people in this situation who may not be very good at writing and who may not even be very good at reading. This missive which they receive goes on to say: It will help if your letter says exactly what you are appealing about and why you disagree with the decision". That is quite a burden for some of the people who will be most concerned in this situation. I am wondering whether the Minister can look again at these communications and see whether they could be put in a more friendly and helpful way. Certainly we need to make it much clearer to the local offices and to the people concerned what are the definitions of "mentally handicapped", "physcially disabled" or "suffering from a mental disorder", which are all criteria in the message that goes out.

I must make it clear that we have many disagreements with the original regulations, but to keep in order we are going to speak only about the young people who are concerned in the amendments. There are many of them who are not exempt but who are genuinely unable to find alternative accommodation. We hope that the Minister will be giving instructions to the local officers to be as generous as they possibly can be.

One of the difficulties of these young people—I do not know why we should go on calling them "young people", because when I was 26 I felt very old, but for the purpose of the debate we must say "young people"—is that if they have to be pushed around from one boarding house to another and allowed to stay only two weeks here, four weeks somewhere else and eight weeks somewhere else, they can never get themselves established on a housing list; they can never get themselves signed on with a local doctor; and they really cannot put down any roots at all. That is part of the problem: that we are creating a great nation of young nomads. I do not think that these amendments deal fundamentally with that. However, I realise that that is not the question before your Lordships tonight.

I want to ask another question about appeals. I understand from a previous occasion that once a young person has made his appeal there is no benefit until the appeal has been heard and adjudged. If I am wrong, I should be very glad to know that. I have to ask the Minister on what young people are supposed to be living if their supplementary benefit is withdrawn because of these rules. There is always some delay before appeals are heard, let alone adjudicated upon. On what are they supposed to live in the interim? This seems to be an invitation to petty crime, to living rough and to all kinds of difficulties for them to have to put up with, which I am sure the Government do not intend.

I welcome what the Minister has said about refugees, because I think this is a good step forward. I had hoped that it would be possible to make refugees one of the listed exemption categories, because at least that, again, is self-identifying. Somebody knows whether or not he is a refugee. Under the rules as they are at present there have been some difficulties in that certain refugees who were not living in approved hostels but who found their own accommodation suddenly found that they did not come under the exemption. At present they come under the category of: People who have become boarders as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement under guidance". Not all refugees think of themselves as "boarders as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement". However, I very much welcome the understanding which the Minister has shown. I am sure that she will see that it is put into action as quickly as possible.

I leave the case as far as we are concerned with those few questions. We shall obviously have to come back to the fundamental arguments about the situation. I am sure that those on this side of the House are looking forward to a situation where we shall not have young people moving around the country looking in desperation for work because they cannot find it near their own homes. We look forward to a situation where there will be more housing for single people and, in many cases of those under 26, people who are living together and who are married but who, until they have children, cannot get on to council lists. Until we get more housing and more jobs, we shall not deal with this whole question. However, regarding the amendments before us, we welcome them so far as they go.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her explanation of the amendment regulations. Seldom has any set of regulations received such a bad reception as was accorded earlier this year to the new regulations dealing with board and lodging. There was, as the noble Baroness will recall, severe criticism of them from all parts of this House.

There were, I believe, two principal fears. The first was that there would be created an itinerant band of young homeless always on the move. Secondly, there was a fear that sick and elderly people might be forced to leave the residential homes where they were living. Regarding elderly people, although for the time being, or perhaps permanently, their costs are to be met at the present level, the present level is not to be indexed; it will cease to be the current level and will therefore cease, in due course, to be sufficient. It is not surprising therefore that the Government already want to amend the regulations. Certainly, we welcome the specific new exemptions: the young people living with parents and step-parents.

We welcome also the Government taking power to extend the list of exemptions. I had it in mind to ask the noble Baroness what the Government propose to do about former foster children. I was glad indeed to learn that they are to be exempted under the new power that the Government are taking. So far as others are concerned, the noble Baroness mentioned young people on bail. I do not think that she mentioned any other groups. I wonder whether she can give any indication of who else at the moment the Government may be preparing to exempt through the use of this new power. We welcome also the flexibility that is being introduced into the transitional arrangements.

So, we welcome the amendments. We welcome them in the same terms as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did. We welcome them so far as they go. But they do not remove the very grave concern about the whole operation of these regulations. In spite of what the noble Baroness said this evening in introducing the regulations, I would reiterate that there does not seem to be justification for the panic that afflicted the Government over this issue. The percentage increase in the average board and lodging charge in 1984 was the lowest for five years. The increase has been an increase in numbers, not charges.

Undoubtedly, unemployment—the increasing impact of unemployment, the increasing effect of unemployment—is a major factor. So too, I imagine, is the shortage of rented accommodation for single people. In so far as the Government have sought to attack charges, they have done so through the claimants. They have got at the landlords in that way. It seems a rather unfair way of going about it. Many owners of residential homes say that it is just impossible to provide what they do at the new rates. This is causing a good deal of concern and even alarm. As the noble Baroness suggested, important rights are being lost by those people who have to be continually on the move—for example, the right to vote. There are problems over part-time education and part-time work. There is a problem over registration with a doctor, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There is the problem over the right to be rehoused through the difficulty of building up points. Then there is the fact that all who should be exempt do not realise this and do not apply to be exempted. There is a certain amount of confusion, I believe, about the whole operation. More far-reaching amendments to the regulations than those before us today are called for. But certainly we welcome those so far as they go.

8.15 p.m.

Lord McNair

My Lords, can I start by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that I do not feel at all jealous because she writes to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and not to me. Besides, she does sometimes write to me. I would like to start by refreshing her memory and informing your Lordships of a passage in a letter that she wrote to me on 23rd May. She wrote: It has never been our intention that young refugees should be affected by the time limit on claiming benefit as a boarder. One of the exemption categories has been drawn up after consultation with the Home Office, among others, specifically with this group in mind". The pleasure with which those words were read by people who try to help refugees was short lived. It did not work out like that. Young people struggling to start a new life and to grow new roots in an alien land are still, or until a few days ago, were still, being chivvied around from place to place in a manner which everyone must surely recognise to be inappropriate and indeed deplorable. It is in total contradiction of the Government's intention, clearly set out in the letter from which I have quoted. I think—indeed I hope—that it is a case of muddle. There seems to be a terrible failure in communication between different levels of official in the DHSS.

I can perhaps best illustrate this by a case history. It concerns a young Ugandan who has been in this country only a few months. He is on a programme of resettlement under the guidance of the British Refugee Council which placed him in board and lodging accommodation in Wimbledon. His claim to be exempt was not accepted by the local office. When he protested, the local office consulted the oracle in Southampton—the office of the chief adjudicator. This Kafka-like person, or body, turned him down. I have to ask the noble Baroness how this can possibly fit with the assurance that she gave me in the letter—an assurance that I am absolutely certain was given in good faith. That is why I suggest that there has been a breakdown in communication.

What is needed, surely, is that the DHSS should clearly name refugees as an exempt category. This should be done in unambiguous language which not even the most unsympathetic local official, if there should be any such, could possibly misunderstand. The definition must include all those different categories of people to whom we refer collectively as refugees. The noble Baroness will find these categories carefully set out in a letter sent to New Court from the British Refugee Council on 10th July. I note that her honourable friend Mr. Whitney says: We shall certainly consider this point sympathetically and urgently". But this point has been made for several weeks. Can she therefore assure us that "urgently" really does mean urgently?

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, about the refugees. When the original regulations were considered in your Lordships' House on 4th April, I advanced several reasons why refugees should be given special consideration, and the most important of those, and the one on which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has touched, is of course the grave psychological upheaval faced by refugees having to move on every few weeks. I speak with some knowledge of this because I am currently giving asylum to two refugees.

Nevertheless, I warmly welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, and perhaps I may ask her whether she can give some sort of assurance that the needs of refugees will be fully considered in future legislation of this kind.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate and I shall endeavour to answer as many questions as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what action is being taken to ensure that the people who need to be exempt from time limits are covered. As I have already indicated, I believe that most vulnerable cases should be covered by the exemption categories.

However, we have reinforced our guidance to local offices by asking them to be particularly alert to the problems that an individual claimant might be experiencing. We have revised the notification letters to claimants so that the claimant or anyone acting on his behalf is asked not only to let the office know immediately if he thinks he falls into one of the exemption categories, but also to let the local office know of any special circumstances which may show a need to be in board and lodging accommodation. This will help us to see whether there are any further exemption categories which need to be covered.

We have also asked local offices to draw up a list of places and agencies in their areas, including the office itself, where claimants will be able to seek help and advice on, for example, finding accommodation or on understanding how the exemption categories may apply to them. Staff are also being reminded to check internal DHSS records for any information which may indicate that a claimant could be covered by the exemption categories.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Government accept that they are affecting vulnerable people by these changes. Once again, my answer is that we have taken action to protect the vulnerable and will extend the list of exemptions if need is shown. We do not believe that the necessary changes in board and lodging payments will lead to increased homelessness or large numbers of people moving around the country.

We believe that most people affected by the changes will be able to make alternative arrangements to claim benefit as householders or non-householders, and that is the picture which seems to be emerging from the initial feedback from our local offices.

With regard to the operation of the extension to the transitional protection, claimants will have to contact their local office setting out the circumstances of the case. Cases will then be referred to the department's headquarters to consider whether the discretion should be exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what happens to people whose money is reduced even though an appeal is pending. Decisions on benefit entitlements are made by adjudication officers. This includes the decision on down-rating benefit to the non-householder rate after the expiry of the time limits as a boarder. I should point out that benefit will not be withdrawn. There are no provisions for changing an adjudicating officer's decision until new facts are known; for example, that the person comes within an exemption category or until an appeal tribunal overturns that decision. The situation is the same with any appeal against the benefit decision.

As regards the letters about which the noble Baroness spoke, they are in English. The letter has recently been amended and improved to ensure that claimants are more readily able to identify themselves if they are exempt or in special difficulties. I also hope that any voluntary bodies or other persons who come into contact with people who, for instance, have had mental troubles, will help them in their approach to offices, which I recognise as being difficult.

With regard to a specific assurance being given to protect all refugees aged 26 or under, which I believe was raised by various noble Lords, I hear and understand what they have said. The existing provisions were designed to protect those in genuine need. We understand that these are providing the proper protection, but that some cases have experienced difficulty in proving that they were exempt. As I have already said, we are looking urgently and sympathetically to see what action should be taken, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that urgently does mean urgently.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about getting a local doctor if a person is on the move. As she will well know, when a person moves to a new area he or she can apply for registration with the local doctor. The doctor can register that person permanently, but if that person is already registered with a doctor elsewhere, the local doctor can treat him as a temporary resident. That surely happens to us all, even if we are merely on holiday and need the services of a doctor.

The noble Lord, Lord banks, asked when the Government plan to announce further exemptions and what they are. That goes to the question of the sympathetic and speedy dealing with exemptions. We have always said that we were prepared to be flexible, and where a need is clearly established my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the powers and, as I have said, will look into any case that is brought to him as speedily as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked what effect the time limits would have on young people getting on local authority housing lists. Those people who are affected by the time limits—for instance, single young people or couples without dependants—are, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, generally accorded very low priority on council housing lists. Those groups who have a higher priority and who would stand a good chance of being successful on lists are already exempted from the time limits.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me about youngsters being forced to move round the country and being deprived of the right to vote. As regards the electoral register and people who move in search of work and accommodation, that is a matter for the registration officer in whose area they are living at the qualifying date. It is for him to decide whether a person's residence is sufficiently permanent to qualify him for inclusion on the register. A young person unable to register in what may be regarded as temporary accommodation may nevertheless have been registered at his parents' or some other address. In that case he would apply for a postal vote in respect of parliamentary elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about the new limits which were leading to residential and nursing home closures and to people being forced to return to hospitals. We recognise that many organisations and proprietors are concerned about the level of the limits. The new limits are intended to allow reasonable charges to be met in homes satisfying the registration requirements, and we do not believe that the limits will result in lower standards or the mass closure of homes. We have drawn up protection arrangements for existing claimants which the noble Lord will know about. Nevertheless, as noble Lords are aware, we are already committed to reviewing the limits within 12 months of their coming into operation. It will be appropriate then to take acount of the experience of the new arrangements as further information obtained from representations and/or inquiries comes in to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also mentioned that it was the lowest increase in charges in 1984 for five years. What the noble Lord did not mention was the effect of the freeze on limits in 1984, which clearly affected the increase in average payments in 1984. I hope I have answered the vital questions asked by your Lordships. I commend these regulations to your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.