HL Deb 25 June 1985 vol 465 cc669-76

4.28 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security on board and lodging payments under the supplementary benefits scheme. The Statement reads as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the arrangements for supplementary benefit payments towards board and lodging charges.

"The House will recall that consultative proposals on board and lodging payments were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee in November 1984 and that in March of this year the Government laid regulations which came into operation on 29th April.

"The regulations were designed to achieve two main purposes. One was to contain the rapid growth in expenditure and to stop the abuses that had been taking place. The number of ordinary board and lodging cases had risen from 49,000 in 1979 to an estimated 139,000 in 1984, while annual expenditure in this area had risen from £52 million to an estimated £380 million over the same period. There was widespread public criticism that young people were too easily able to settle in such accommodation at the public expense often at levels of charges well above what could be afforded by people in work.

Our second purpose, at least as important as the first, was to ensure continued help at an appropriate level for young people who really do need board and lodging for more than a short time. We therefore took steps to exempt from time limits people such as those who were recently in care; who have children; who are disabled, mentally handicapped are or have been mentally ill; or who are in board and lodging as part of a programme of rehabilitation arranged by, for example, the probation service. We also exempted people living in homes qualified as hostels.

"We made it clear that we would be monitoring the new regulations with great care and would be ready to make changes quickly if the need were shown. That monitoring is of course continuing; but the initial indications suggest that, generally, young people with a real need to be in board and lodging for more than a short time should he covered by the various categories of exemption from the time limits for which the regulations already provide. It is therefore important that claimants or anyone else who is concerned about a particular case should ensure that any special circumstances are fully explained to the local DHSS office, who will give them careful consideration before any final decision on benefit entitlement is reached.

"We have however decided that an additional exemption category is needed to cover young people under the age of 26 who are living with their parents or step-parents in board and lodging accommodation. Regulations to achieve this will be laid before the House shortly; and until they come into effect we shall make special arrangements to help those people to whom they would apply.

"The regulations will also enable us to extend the exemption categories to cover other types of case if a need can be shown. As I have indicated, we believe that the present exemptions generally cover those to whom the time limits ought not to apply. But we think it right to ensure that we can act quickly and flexibly if it should become clear that there are other groups who should also be covered.

Mr. Speaker, the Government's objective is to strike a proper balance between curbing undoubted abuse and ensuring that genuine social security needs are effectively met. The additional proposals I have made today will help us to maintain that balance."

That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Any amelioration is very welcome to this side, but I wonder why we have had a Statement today. In my view it is because of the severely critical publicity which has arisen following the cruel impact on some of the most vulnerable young people in our community which has resulted from these new rules. I know that I must not make a debate out of a Statement and so I shall ask the noble Baroness the Minister one or two questions. What happens to young people or older people while they are waiting for appeals to be heard? I understand that there is a long waiting period of total impoverishment if a young person appeals against the withdrawal of benefit. Is no discretionary payment made to tide someone over such a difficult period?

We know that the time limits laid down are far too short for many people to find a job, to put down roots, to get onto housing lists; and so there is inevitable hardship. The noble Baroness said that there are exemptions, but the problem seems to be that not every person entitled to exemption knows about it. In fact, some of the tragic cases we have heard about lately seem to suggest that some of these people would have been exempt from these regulations had anybody told them about it.

The noble Baroness has not referred to refugees. She will know that I have raised this point on previous occasions. She and I have had correspondence because of the anxieties of the British Council for Refugees about young people coming here from overseas with all kinds of problems of poverty and language difficulties and not being able to get the help that they need.

The Statement referred to the increase in the number of people claiming board and lodging. I wish the noble Baroness had said today, although I know she is only repeating a Government Statement, what the Government are proposing to do to deal with the causes of this homelessness, unemployment and misery. Instead we are given these increased figures. We know that the figures will rise further, because the Government's own social security advisory commission pointed out that the rules would create an army of young nomads roaming the country, having to move from place to place—

Lord Ross of Marnock

On their bikes, my Lords.

Baroness Jeger

It is as my noble friend says, though I do not think many of them can afford a bike nowadays. I appreciate the sympathy of the noble Baroness, but the exemptions are not widely known and are not working out because many of the disabled and mentally handicapped who are in board and lodging accommodation do not seem to be receiving the help and sustenance that they need.

The Statement says that there is to be an additional exemption category to cover young people under the age of 26 who are living with their parents or stepparents in board and lodging accommodation. But what is to happen to young people who have no parents or step-parents? Many of these children or young people do not even know their parents. They have been adrift for most of their lives and are the casualties very often of broken marriages and miserable family situations.

The noble Baroness may recall—I hope she will not mind if I quote it—a letter she wrote to me on 23rd May, referring to a statement I made on a previous occasion. I appreciate the courtesy of the noble Baroness. She always writes fully and sympathetically. She wrote: You felt also that the elderly mentally infirm should receive a separate, more generous rate. We do not consider it would be appropriate to introduce a further category, particularly one that would be difficult to define and administer". There is nothing in the Statement today about any special help for this category of elderly mentally infirm. There is nothing about refugees or young people who are not with parents or step-parents. Though we are glad that the Government are giving a sidelong look at this problem, we believe that they are far from coping with the cruelty of the present situation.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It shows the beginnings of an awareness of the problems being created by the new rules. To that extent as far as it goes we welcome it. But one has to say that it seems to have been prompted by some tragic instances which have taken place over the last few weeks and which have been reported in the press.

The Statement refers to the categories of exemption and it seems that there are now a number of categories. Are the Government satisfied that this information is freely and easily available and that the DHSS guidelines are clear, clearly displayed and available to those who inquire? As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said, it seems that the only real concession made in the Statement is not very far reaching, covering young people under the age of 26 who are living with their parents or step-parents in board and lodging accommodation. It would seem to cover the case of Vietnamese refugees living in the Access Hotel, Clapham who have been under threat, as many of them, who have received move-on letters, are living at the hotel with their parents. Can the noble Baroness confirm that those move-on letters will now be withdrawn as a result of the Statement? Even if the situation of the young Vietnamese refugees is covered by the Statement, there does not seem to be any more overall cover for the general category of refugees and asylum-seekers. Can the noble Baroness therefore assure us that refugees and asylum-seekers will now be included in the category of exemption and that this will be made clear?

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned refugees and I make no apologies for mentioning them again because they clearly suffer special difficulties. It is important for them to be able to build up links with members of their community, their doctor, to attend English classes at the same institute and to be within easy reach of any advice agencies that they might need. At the present moment they are hampered in their efforts to settle by being forced into a nomadic existence or they are obliged to depend on a voluntary agency to guide them on their every move. Can we have an assurance from the Government that that problem in particular will be included under the extended category of exemption?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for a kind of half-hearted welcome to these new proposals. I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did not see fit to be gracious about the fact that we had speedily recognised, as we said we would, that there was a need for greater flexibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what happened to people while appeals were being heard. The situation is exactly the same with any appeal against a benefit decision. There are no provisions for changing an adjudication officer's decision on entitlement until new facts are known or until an appeal tribunal overturns that decision.

With regard to refugees, which both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned, may I remind them—and this applies to all the other points that they raised—that the Secretary of State can use discretionary powers when faced with any new category of people who appear to be in need. This includes the plight of refugees. If there are any particular cases that either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness know about, I hope that they will get in touch with my right honourable friend.

With regard to the Vietnamese in the Access Hotel (to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred) they are receiving ex gratia payments until the regulations come into effect when they will be exempted. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer on that point. With regard to the more general question of refugees, young refugees living with their parents in board-and-lodging accommodation will be covered by the new regulations that we intend to introduce. We are in very close contact with the British Refugee Council about the problems of young refugees. I understand that the chief adjudication officer will be issuing additional guidance shortly to help sort out the problems; but in any case the exemption categories, under the new discretionary power that we shall be introducing, could be extended to cover, as I have said, any category shown to have been missed.

With regard to what happens to young people with no parents, new regulations will allow us to extend the exemption categories to any other groups if a need is shown, and of course we shall be looking at this particular problem. It might be that they are living with grandparents who would form yet another category. It would be very rare. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked whether the new arrangements would not penalise elderly and disabled people. I would say that the new arrangements are designed to ensure that elderly and disabled people can continue to meet reasonable charges for care. Drug and alcohol users and physically handicapped people are likely to benefit from the new proposals.

The proposals include a change in the treatment of attendance allowances for those in private residential accommodation and the introduction of a new level of personal expenses allowance. Both changes are intended to fit more closely the actual needs of people in residential homes and should not cause hardship. We intend to review the limits within the next 12 months instead of freezing them until November 1986, as originally intended. In doing so, we shall have regard to proprietors' behaviour as well. Moreover, there will be generous protection for people already in homes. It is certainly not the intention that anyone should be deprived of the type of accommodation and care that they need as a result of these changes.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement? How sad I feel that the Statement does not go far enough! Many of us who are active in the voluntary service have, as I have, wives who work in the citizens' advice bureaux. My wife is constantly coming to me and telling me what is going on there and telling me about case after case of people who are not getting the benefits and asking to be moved on from one place to another. There is only one thing for it. It is for this Act to be completely repealed. It is causing more hardship than anything I have known for many years. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Minister and the officials will realise how difficult it is for those who are working in the field to explain to people what are their entitlements. I hope that something is done very quickly. I know that the noble Baroness has said that the Minister will look at it again and again. I hope that the Minister will take note of the numerous complaints that are coming from all over the country.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is slightly overlooking the fact of the vast increase in sums from £52 million to an estimated £380 million in the year. I must say to him that if he knows about all these complaints, I should be very grateful if he would write to me or to my right honourable friend because unless these complaints are brought to our notice, how can we know about them?

Lord Banks

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether former foster children remaining in their former foster parents' home are now to be exempt?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, there is this terrible moment of silence! I think they are to be exempted and that foster children would count as being as children with parents. If I am wrong, I apologise to the House in advance and I shall write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, is not the vast increase in sums very largely a reflection of the increasing unemployment that we have seen in recent years among young people in particular? I should like to direct attention to some of the publicity that we have had recently in connection with young people because it seems to me that those are the category most at risk, rather than some of the exempt categories. I welcome the exempt categories, of course; but the people who are at risk it seems to me are young people who have left the areas where they were born because of the high unemployment in those areas in the belief that they can get work by moving to other areas, sometimes to the south coast. But when they get there, they find that unemployment still exists there; and they have to have some form of accommodation. That is where the problem lies, so it seems to me.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is not entirely correct. Of course, unemployment comes into the picture; but there is also the question of population movements and where these young people are finding it most attractive to go, regardless of work opportunities. It is definitely wrong that young people should be occupying accommodation which they would not be able to afford if they were in work and which other people who are in work cannot afford.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness. I was slightly surprised that the noble Baroness expressed amazement that my noble friend Lady Jeger did not go into ecstacies of gratitude over the content of this Statement. I do not think the noble Baroness should be surprised at that when one considers that we made all the criticisms, some of which are now being replied to, in the Second Reading debate and also in other debates in this Chamber.

Is the noble Baroness aware that we said then, as I would wish to repeat now, that it is a totally unnecessary measure? It was introduced in a panic in response to a report in a newspaper that some kids were living it up at the seaside at the state's expense, The Government were panicked into introducing these regulations. Is the noble Baroness aware that we said then that it would have been far better to await soberly the outcome of the review into social security generally and then to do something more permanent and more acceptable than these panic regulations? It is hardly surprising that we are not over the moon, to use a football cliché about this.

The noble Baroness has repeated the figures that she mentioned on Second Reading. They have gone up from £52 million to £380 million. Can she tell us how much of that is taken care of by the normal inflationary process, which has been quite dramatic? Can she say how much of it was taken by the "one-off" exercise in 1982–83 when there had to be such a dramatic increase in the amounts payable that of course it pushed up the figures quite tremendously? It still did not meet the real costs, but to bring it nearer to the real costs there had to be that dramatic increase. That must be reflected in the huge increase she has mentioned.

The noble Baroness mentioned also the huge increase in the number of claimants. My noble friend has already referred to unemployment. How much of an effect has that had? How much has the lack of alternative rented accommodation had an effect? We know that local authorities have cut back on the provision of rented accommodation and the provision of purpose-built hostels and so on. I would ask the noble Baroness to recall that many of the larger hostels are going through a refurbishment process because of fires and tragedies which have occurred in recent years and which have caused them to spend a great deal of money on necessary repairs, rebuilding and so on. That has meant a reduction by thousands in the number of beds.

The noble Baroness may recall that I said to her in a recent debate that within a month of these regulations being introduced 10,000 youngsters in central London would be on the streets. I was wrong: it is more than that. I think that the 500 submissions the department received all made similar statements: they were absolutely horrified at the kind of regulations being introduced.

Perhaps I may say finally that the Government still seem to be dealing with the symptoms and not the causes. It was the causes that I wanted to be dealt with and to be properly discussed as a result of the social security reviews. I would like to say—

A noble Lord

No!

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, he really is trying the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House a little hard. There is a Standing Order that we do not turn the repeating of a Statement into a debate. The noble Lord is making skilful points, but he is making an awful lot of them.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I apologise if I am abusing the Standing Orders. It was certainly never my intention to do any such thing. I was trying to ask a number of questions. I was going to ask another question. Is the noble Baroness aware that this time limit—whether it is two, four, six or eight weeks—is totally unrealistic in order to find work or to get oneself put on to the panel of a medical practitioner? Will the noble Baroness review that time limit? I had better not ask any more questions because of the Standing Orders, but there are thousands more questions still unasked because of the nature of these panicky regulations that could have waited for a proper debate.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am lucky enough to be able now to correct myself in what I said in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about foster-children. They are not covered under the specific change to the exemptions, but that is one group we may well want to cover by the use of my right honourable friend's discretionary powers. I am sorry if I misled the House earlier.

With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in his Second Reading speech, may I say that he made typically socialist remarks, totally regardless—spend, spend, spend—of the fact that the money has got to come from somebody's pockets, and it is coming from his pockets just as much as from those of other people. We have already dealt with all the points that he raised when the order was first debated. They have nothing to do with the Statement that I repeated to your Lordships today.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I must protest for a moment against what the noble Baroness has just said. Of course the money comes from our pockets, and from some of us it comes willingly and gladly. We would pay more if we could do something to remedy the evils we have been discussing. I think it was very ungracious of the noble Baroness to make that remark about my noble friend Lord Stallard, because he pays his taxes, as we all do. I am sure we would all do so without regret if we could feel that they were being used for these kinds of purposes.