HL Deb 21 March 1985 vol 461 cc669-76

4.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)

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

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

"The House will recall that consultative proposals were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee in November 1984. We are today laying before the House the Committee's report, together with the Government's response to their recommendations. We are grateful to the Committee for the constructive approach they brought to their task, and have taken their views fully into account in framing the regulations which are also laid before the House today. Subject to the approval of Parliament, the new arrangements will come into operation on 29th April 1985.

"The maximum weekly amount payable for ordinary board and lodging, which is at present set locally for each DHSS office and varies from £40 to £110, will be set for each area at one of six standard amounts ranging from £45 to £70 per week. For this purpose, DHSS local offices will be grouped, taking account of Department of Employment travel-to-work areas so as to reflect so far as possible established patterns of employment and job-seeking.

"Subject to these limits, there will be no restriction on access to board and lodging accommodation for people aged 26 or over, or for those of any age who come within defined categories such as those who are chronically sick or disabled, those who have a dependent child, and those who have been in the same accommodation while in employment. For unemployed claimants aged 25 or under, unless they are in an exempted category, each area will have a limit of 2, 4 or 8 weeks in the period for which board and lodging payments will be made.

"Hostels, which have hitherto been subject to the normal board and lodging rules, will be treated as a separate category, reflecting the importance which the Government attach to them. They will have a higher limit—set at £70 a week nationally—than most ordinary board and lodging accommodation; and there will be no restrictions on the length of stay for hostels.

"For residential care and nursing homes the Government intend to set new limits at a level which they believe will allow reasonable charges to be met in homes meeting the new registration arrangements under the Registered Homes Act 1984. At present, local limits vary from £51 to £215 for residential care homes and from £80 to £295 for nursing homes. The limits for residential care homes will be £110 a week for the elderly; £120 a week for the mentally ill and 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 sum equivalent to the higher rate of attendance allowance—currently £28.60 a week—will be added to these limits for people in nursing homes. There will be an additional hospice category, with a limit of £198.60 a week.

"In future, 'topping-up' payments by local authorities towards the cost of younger people in residential care homes will not reduce the payment of supplementary benefit; but attendance allowance will be taken into account in full in assessing supplementary benefit entitlement for those in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes. The rate of personal expenses allowances for people in these homes will be set at £8.50 a week—30p a week higher than proposed in the consultative document.

"Existing claimants will of course need a period to adjust to these changes. Those over 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. Those under pension age in residential homes, hostels or boarded out by local authorities can continue for a year to have their charges met at their current levels. Those in ordinary board and lodging will have between four and 13 weeks to find alternative accommodation if their current accommodation is more expensive than the new limits.

"The Government accept that, following the standstill on existing local limits in recent months, it would be appropriate to review the proposed new limits earlier than November 1986, as envisaged in the consultative document. They will therefore be reviewed within 12 months of coming into operation.

"Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that action is needed to control this form of social security expenditure, whose increase has gone far beyond what can be justified by sensible social priorities. We believe that our proposals, modified in the light of advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee, will enable real needs to be properly met while avoiding unacceptable waste and abuse. But we shall monitor carefully the effects of the changes and be ready if necessary to make further changes".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.53 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I understand that the orders will be debatable, and therefore I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to follow what I feel is a regettable tendency in this House for Statements to become the subject of debate. I wish briefly to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord which will help the debate that we must have later.

Will the Minister confirm that on 29th November 1984 (in column 1026 of Hansard) he told the House that he would be bringing regulations before us in February? We are getting well towards the end of March. I am wondering whether, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord can explain to the House why there has been this apparent delay. That is my first question.

My second question relates to the second or third paragraph of the Statement, which refers to the maximum weekly amount payable for ordinary board and lodging. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that refers to full board and lodging or to bed and breakfast accommodation, which many of us feel is in a very difficult and unacceptable situation at the moment. The price range which he gives of from £45 to £70 a week is very different if it is just for bed and breakfast rather than for full board.

My next question is about the alteration in age. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House why the age of 26 is apparently to be written into the regulations. People under 26 are not juveniles. They are often well-established adults. It is very difficult to understand why 26 should be the cut-off age. Why should it not be 25, 24 or 21, or 18, which is the age of majority in this country? If people are disqualified because of age or for some other reason from receiving supplementary benefit assistance, where do they then go? I should have thought that we have enough homeless people sleeping rough, sleeping in the streets and trying to get into hostels. If I read the Statement correctly, many people will now be turned out of accommodation, and the Minister has not told us where they are to go. If the result of the charges and the changes is that more people are turned out and made homeless, it is not very constructive.

I want to ask the Minister briefly about the local limits. I appreciate his problems. None of us on this side of the House wants to see people profiteering from homelessness or taking unfair advantage of the regulations. But when the limits are fixed in various areas, is he sure that they will relate also to the standard of care provided? There might be a shoddy boarding house in a well-to-do area, and in another area a very caring hotel or hostel. Much more important than the area in which the hostel or home is situated is the standard of care provided. I hope that local offices will look very carefully at that point.

Those are the main questions which I ask now, but I assure the noble Lord that I feel that the proper time for us to go into more detail is when we debate the regulations.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It is of course of some reassurance that it has been through the Social Security Advisory Committee and that that committee has had a careful look at the Government's proposals. But I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions.

The Statement says that there will be no restrictions on the length of stay at hostels. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government have thought about the treatment of half-way houses, as I think they are called, which are used particularly for people coming out of Borstal? I should be glad to hear whether he has any comment on that.

On the scale of charges for the elderly (on page 2 of the Statement), am I right in thinking that the top limits of £110, £120, £140 and £170 are in fact £10 lower than those which appeared in the consultative document? Can the noble Lord comment on that? Is there a good reason for that change? I have just been looking up the consultative document figures, and I think I am right.

I am also not clear about the position of attendance allowance. Am I right in thinking that, currently, attendance allowance can be paid for certain people in residential homes and that if it were removed they would not be able to stay in those homes? As I understand it from the Statement, it is to be payable only to those who are actually in nursing homes. Is that the position? If so, is that a wise move? No mention is made of licensing and inspection, but I think that was covered in a recent Statement. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that that new system on licensing and inspection will come into operation.

The Statement says that those over 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. Obviously, we welcome this. Can the noble Lord tell us whether that guarantee is index-linked, in other words, whether it is in real terms, or will there in fact be a constantly reducing amount of money available for those people to pay to stay in those homes? The noble Lord looks puzzled. Perhaps I may put my question to him again. Where there is a commitment that people can stay where they are for life at the level of payment in force when the new limits proposed in the Statement are introduced, perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether that will be index-linked, so that the commitment is there in real terms.

Finally, may I ask this? Although the Statement says that this kind of expenditure has gone far beyond what can be justified by sensible social priorities, will the noble Lord not agree that the Government should ask themselves why there has been this increase in private sector provision? Is it not largely due to the increase in youth unemployment and to the difficulties experienced by local authorities in meeting the needs inside their own homes because of the limits on their capital expenditure?

5.2 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I shall try to answer some of the many questions that they asked. Perhaps I may start with the question of the noble Baroness about why it has taken us beyond February to do it. The answer is because we allowed longer for the Social Security Advisory Committee to prepare their report. I should have thought that that was in the interests of everybody concerned.

So far as limits for full board and lodging are concerned, people in board and lodging without meals receive payment for the charge that they have to pay and the amount for meals, as I understand it, subject to a limit. Therefore, as I think the noble Baroness realises, we are talking essentially about two different things. So far as the housing aspects are concerned on board and lodging, and the need to minimise homelessness, and the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, that is another point which I do not think the noble Baroness was getting at but of course in that case the local authorities have a responsibility as well.

So far as the end of the limit is concerned—I think this was really a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he asked his questions—when people come to the end of their time limit in one particular area and move to another one, I believe, and I think also the noble Baroness will believe, that that is really quite consistent with the idea of looking for work. Time limits vary up and down the country. They are not quite as lengthy in places like Torquay, which is a holiday area, as they are in some other parts of the country. The whole idea is that the system should not be misused to the extent that it has been of late.

On the question of abuse, I do not think I need reiterate the fact that there has been considerable abuse. It has been published in the papers. There have been advertisements by board and lodging establishments encouraging abuse, which I will not repeat now because I have done so fairly regularly in the past. The whole purpose of this particular set of regulations is to stop this abuse, to meet the needs where necessary, and to introduce a review where that is considered appropriate.

As for the limits themselves, and whether they are too low or do not take enough account of local variations—which was a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—we have set limits ranging from £45 to £70 individually for each of the 131 areas. We believe that they are reasonable and not extravagant, having regard to what is a reasonable amount for supplementary benefit to pay. As I have said, we shall keep the limits under review and we shall be prepared to vary them up or down if we see convincing evidence that such a move is justified. We have decided to revise limits within the next 12 months depending on the way the market behaves, instead of freezing them until November 1986 as originally proposed. I think that that is certainly also an advantage.

The noble Baroness asked about the age of 26 and why that had been chosen. One obviously has to set a limit. Yes, I suppose it is an arbitrary limit in so far as any limit is arbitrary. We think it reasonable to set it. Originally we did not set any age limit so that the proposals would have applied to all in ordinary board and lodging, and this was really not consistent with the kind of system that we had in mind.

So far as hostels are concerned, a full and extensive definition is set in consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. Also my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a discretion to treat places as hostels even if they do not fit the definition but nevertheless provide the appropriate standard of accommodation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about hospices. I have not the information in front of me. I shall have to study the remarks of the noble Lord and perhaps write to him about that. He also asked about halfway houses. I should like to treat that similarly. He talks about people coming out of borstal. In this particular instance I am not quite sure how they fit into this package.

As to the rates being £10 lower than in the original document, the fact that they are lower takes account of the fact that they no longer have to last until November 1986 but will be looked at and possibly increased sooner. Therefore, I hope that meets that particular need. The noble Lord asked a number of other questions about attendance allowance, which I should like to study. I am afraid I cannot now give him an answer to that.

I think the most important point to come out of this exchange is that there are a number of changes. They take into account the reports of the Social Security Advisory Committee. They meet the real needs of people in these circumstances and they prevent abuse. I am well aware that both documents need quite a lot of time to study. As the noble Baroness was kind enough to say, we shall have an opportunity to debate them more fully in due course when the orders are debated in your Lordships' House.

Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people will be relieved that at last the Government have moved to deal with the abuses of the system which have resulted in quite scandalous increases in rents and lodging charges in certain areas to the extent of grossly distorting the housing market? It is a system which has also resulted in many young people without employment being subsidised at the public expense at levels far beyond those that any young person in work could have hoped to earn.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, yes. I am very grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. What he says is absolutely true. The numbers of people claiming for ordinary board and lodging have risen by the most staggering amount. The figures I have here show that they rose from 41,000 in 1979 to 139,000 in 1984 and the annual spending based on this rose in the same years from £52 million to £380 million and stands currently at about £570 million. Furthermore, there is absolutely no sign at all that they were going to do anything but continue to rise at that kind of rate.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord the Minister answered the question of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock about the indexation of charges, for those in residential care and nursing homes, which are already over the level. This is a matter which absolutely needs to be spelt out as soon as possible. Quite clearly, if this provision is not indexed it will result in very considerable distress for those people least able to cope with the situation over the forthcoming years.

5.10 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I understand it—and if I am wrong I apologise in advance—they are subject to review. That review will take place in the way that I described, so I do not think that there need be any particular worry on this score. If I can provide any other information, I shall of course let both noble Lords know.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, may I briefly thank my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement. He has mentioned that these orders are likely to come into force on 29th April and that we are to have the privilege of debating them before that date. There are very few days left because we shall soon be in recess for Easter and I know that we have a very heavy programme immediately afterwards. Can he assure us that we are to have this debate? A lot of us are very worried not only about the Statement but about the state of board and lodgings in London. The present situation has been brought about by the enormous increase in unemployment and the fact that many people are coming to this city to try to find employment.

I should like to ask the Minister—I do not expect him to answer now—whether he can categorise very carefully, and perhaps simplistically for me, the difference between hostels and hotels and board and lodgings and bed and breakfast and full board. A lot of places are calling themselves hotels when they are not; they are only bed and breakfast accommodation. It would be helpful if we could have the answer to that before we debate the whole subject so that I for one do not get in a muddle.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I shall do my best myself not to get in a muddle. I understand my noble friend's point of view. I shall find out about that matter and let her know. The debate is of course a matter for the usual channels; but I can tell her that I fully expect we shall debate these orders before Easter. Standing up once more gives me the opportunity to answer the point the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised about halfway houses. As I understand it, this particular concern is met by my right honourable friend's discretion in this matter. That discretion covers the particular houses the noble Lord is concerned about.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister discovers that he is wrong in what he tentatively said in reply to my last question—that the indexation is going to be subject to review. This is not a question of review; it is a question of a guarantee to people, elderly people, who are already in places where many of them are hoping to live for the rest of their lives, that they will have security. It is not a question of a review; it is a question of indexation. I hope the noble Lord will find that he is wrong, and I hope that if he does so he will take steps to let the House know.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I may have been at cross-purposes with the noble Lord, for which I apologise. I hope that I made it plain when I repeated the Statement that those who are over pension age—and those are the people I think the noble Lord is referring to—who are 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. Those under pension age—I am now again repeating what I said—

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord. He referred to the level in force. Does that mean the cash level in force, or will it be indexed? Will it be the same next year and the year after, or will it go up as inflation goes up?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I understand it, it is reviewed. I am sorry that I cannot be too sure now. I shall have to seek advice before giving a categorical answer to the noble Lord. In this case perhaps he will accept that I shall write to him rather than give him wrong information and mislead him.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, this has been a very welcome Statement, but a rather complicated one. I realise that the matter is going to be debated in the near future, but I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend the Minister one question. Bearing in mind that presumably many of the residents of these establishments will need medical attention, I should like to ask my noble friend whether there will be qualified medical staff to deal with any conditions, such as hypothermia, which may arise. What qualifications will be needed by those who will presumably be needed for this purpose?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I think that perhaps my noble friend may be referring to the registration of voluntary and privately-run residential care homes and the improvements which are required under the Registered Homes Act. I can certainly let my noble friend have a copy of all that is contained in those particular improvements. I do not have with me the details about medical care, but I am quite sure the residents are looked after. I can certainly let my noble friend know.