HL Deb 21 July 1987 vol 488 cc1291-8

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I trust that it will also be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to the second Motion in my name.

The draft regulations order put into effect amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations dealing with the payment of benefit to people in residential care and nursing homes. It also uprates the amount of the student grant that can be disregarded in respect of books and equipment. We are always being told that not enough money is spent on student books, and this is a practical way to ease the problem.

The draft regulations are a lot more complicated and deal principally with the payment of supplementary benefit to people in small residential care homes; that is, homes with three or fewer residents which cannot register with a local authority. People living in these homes can get supplementary benefit up to the same limits as registered residential care homes. The intention was that this should only happen where the care given was clearly equivalent to that given in a registered home and thus the costs of the home justified higher benefit levels. However, there is doubt as to whether the current regulations actually achieve this aim. There has also been widespread concern that the present benefit provisions positively encourage the setting up of small homes regardless of the services provided.

The amendments in these draft regulations restore the original policy intention. The new definition, at regulation 2(b), takes the provision of staff of a reasonable calibre as a proxy for additional costs. The higher limit will apply where the home provides personal care and there are at least two people with relevant experience employed in providing that care. At least one of those people must be available throughout the working day and one must be on call throughout the night to care for residents. Residents must also have free access to the home at all times.

This new definition should ensure that rates of benefit bear a defensible relationship with costs. It should also be simpler to administer than the present provisions. Specifying the requirements for the higher limit provides a system which will be clearer for adjudication officers who will have sharply defined parameters within which to work, claimants who will know what help they can expect and those providing care for whom the position will be much clearer.

Your Lordships will have observed that a few claimants may already be receiving higher rates of benefit which would be considered inappropriate under the new provisions. Regulation 3 protects their position. Their benefit will remain unchanged until there is a relevant change in their circumstances.

The amendment regulations also include, at Regulation 2(a), a new definition of a "nursing home". This is a technical amendment to make it clear that references to nursing homes in the supplementary benefit requirements regulations are to registered homes.

Finally, on the amendment regulations I should mention Regulation 4 which deals with a quite different aspect of supplementary benefit. Regulation 4 reflects the increased rates of student grants for the academic year 1987–88. Within the new rates of grant there is an increased allocation for books and equipment. The supplementary benefit regulations provide a specific disregard for this element of the student grant and the purpose of this regulation is to uprate that disregard to the new level.

I turn now to the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order, which provides for the payment of the £10 Christmas bonus. It provides for the payment of a non-taxable Christmas bonus of £10 in the week commencing 7th December to retirement pensioners and to recipients of the other qualifying benefits specified on the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Act 1979.

As we look forward to our summer holidays it must inevitably strike your Lordships as inappropriate that the House should be called upon to debate the payment of a Christmas bonus some six months in advance. I am pleased therefore to be able to remind the House that this is in fact the last time that such a debate will be necessary. From next year payment of the bonus will be made automatically as one of the very welcome administrative simplifications resulting from the Social Security Act 1986.

I firmly believe that pensioners budgeting for Christmas need the assurance of that contribution to their expenses which this payment provides. That is why we have paid the bonus every year we have been in office, why we gave pensioners statutory entitlement in 1979 not taking it away on a temporary basis when economic circumstances dictate as they did in 1975 and 1976 and why, as I mentioned before, we have now made receipt of the bonus an automatic right in primary legislation.

I am proud that this year we are paying the bonus to a record number of pensioners at an estimated cost of around £114 million. I accept that this is only a small part of the £22 billion that pensioners receive in benefit. This is right and proper, for what pensioners need most is day-to-day support. That we are clearly giving them, not just through the social security system but through protecting that part of pensioners' incomes which they have built up independently. Pensioners who have set aside money for their retirement, either through occupational or private pensions schemes or in the form of savings, can now enjoy the benefits of this foresight without fear of the effects of inflation. The result, as I hardly need remind the House, has been a substantial increase in pensioners' incomes. Between 1979 and 1985 their average weekly net income from all sources rose by almost a fifth in real terms. These are of course average figures and there are still some pensioners less well-off than we should like to see.

The result of this is that pensioners as a group have seen their living standards rise over twice as fast of those of the population as a whole. That is what matters to pensioners and that is what will enable them to save for a comfortable and happy Christmas. The order before the House today provides a worthwhile contribution towards that end and I commend it, together with the draft Supplementary Benefit Amendment Regulations, to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—[Lord Skelmersdale.]

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, we are glad to welcome these regulations in principle. Some months ago we raised the question in your Lordships' House about more control being needed in small homes with four or fewer people. It might seem a bit churlish, having asked for these controls to be brought in, to ask the noble Lord a few questions, but if we do not get the details right today we shall be laying up difficulties for the people who will have to implement what the Minister agrees are very complicated rules.

We need to know whether in homes with fewer than four persons that number could go down to three, two or one. Moreover could one put up one's decrepit old parents in one's house and call that a home within the terms of these regulations? In paragraph 2 it is stated: Those responsible persons [must] have at least one year's relevant experience in caring for persons in need of the category of personal care for which the establishment provides such care". I simply cannot understand what that means. Does it mean that in one of these small homes there are a diversity of disabilities? One person might be blind, another may have arthritis, another may have senile dementia and another might be suffering from some other disability. How can we define care for persons, in need of the category of personal care"? Does it mean that these small homes must take only one kind of disability? That would cause difficulties and would undo some of the intentions of the regulations.

Sub-paragraph (iii), to which the Minister referred, provides: at least one responsible person is available throughout the day". Does that mean that the same person has to be available throughout the day, because that might involve longer hours than would be considered desirable? I ask this question particularly because in the next paragraph, (iv), it states: throughout the night, at least one responsible person is on call". Is it not meant in sub-paragraph (iii) that throughout the day at least one person should be on duty? There is no inference that it should be the same person. If the noble Lord agrees with me, then I suggest that sub-paragraph (iii) should read "throughout the day". I know these are details but I am thinking of the people working in the homes who will want to know about their working conditions.

In paragraph 3 I notice that the transitional provisions, which we all welcome, are to be applied where the adjudication officer had made the decision before 27th July. I must ask what happens if a person had applied before 27th July, but because of delays—we know that there have been all sorts of staff problems in overworked social security offices—the decision was not reached until after 27th July. Will there not then be some unfairness to the persons concerned. Why or how are all these regulations to be implemented? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be considerable increases in staff especially for adjudication officers.

We welcome the slight improvement to the student disregard. I am curious as to how the figure of £210 was arrived at as an increase over £187. Was it a question of inflation or does it take into account the fact that the price of books has increased vastly more than the general cost of living index? Perhaps while we are on this point the Minister can give us some information about student support. The fifth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee is anxious that student support should be taken out of social security. A House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and Art, said in its report last December (at paragraph 24): In our view it is right that the Government should seek to remove student support from the social security system". I understand that the Secretary of State for Education is taking a long look at the whole subject of financial support for students. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how that study is progressing. I should be happy if student support could be totally separated from social security because at the moment it causes confusion, a double lot of work in two departments and is not really the way to go about these things.

I shall be very short in my remarks on the pensioners' lump sum payments, though I appreciate that the Minister had to use the opportunity for his party political comments. I shall be happy only when all our old people are living in such comfort and well-being the whole year round that they do not have to depend on a Santa Claus hand-out at Christmas.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I too should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his explanation of these regulations and this order. Dealing with the regulations first, Regulation 4 relating to students is immediately acceptable, although whether or not the revised disregard is adequate is another matter. It is related to the general question of the adequacy of students' grant which falls rather outside the scope of our debate this afternoon.

It could be argued that the object of Regulation 2 is to effect a reduction in spending. The fact that the transitional protection is provided for those residents currently in small care residential homes which will no longer meet the definition of such a home supports the view that a cut, however small, is being made for the future. Have the Government any estimate of the numbers likely to be affected and in the long run the sum likely to be saved?

Of course the Government say that standards are being tightened and control is being extended and we can only welcome that intention most warmly. However, we are bound to ask whether penalising claimants is the fairest way to control institutions. Is it not perhaps better to place any necessary regulations directly on the institutions, requiring them to maintain certain standards, rather than to penalise a claimant who finds himself being cared for in an institution which does not reach the required standard? Finally on this question, can the noble Lord say when the report of the DHSS local government working party, chaired by Joan Firth, is to be published?

Turning to the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order, as the noble Lord explained to us, that provides for the payment this year of the £10 Christmas bonus, and of course we do not oppose that. However, we are bound to repeat our complaint, which has been voiced many times, that the Government are allowing the value of the bonus to decline each year. If particular social security benefits are thought by the Government to be necessary, they should be index-linked, or convincing reasons should be advanced why a lower real value of benefit is now appropriate. We have seen this gradual decline happen with other benefits, and 1 think particularly of the death grant. The Government allow the benefit to decline and then they say that it is not worth continuing it and that it would cost too much to restore it to its original value.

In the recent Alliance election manifesto we proposed a double pension in the first week of December, which of course at current rates would mean that a single person would receive £39.50 and a married couple £63.35. We reckoned that the net cost of that would be £268 million. Of course that is an item in a budget of over £40 billion. It was part of the package of improvements to social security that we put forward and that we intended to pay for in part by restricting mortgage interest relief to the standard rate, and replacing the personal allowances against income for tax purposes by an allowance against tax which would have been worth the same at all levels of income tax.

If the pensioners' Christmas bonus is to be continued into the future, then some form of indexation will surely be necessary. The noble Lord spoke about the position of pensioners generally and indicated that it had improved over recent years, which was partly due to the fact that in the early days of the Government there was a link with earnings. Now the Government have broken that link with earnings and it is a fact, is it not, that earnings are increasing faster than prices? Is it not also a fact that the Government's future estimates are all worked out on the assumption that that situation will continue? If that situation does continue, will not the position of pensioners deteriorate and any advantage that there may have been be wiped out?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their general welcome of this order. Clearly there are some detailed questions about which I shall do my best to talk. Equally clearly there are some points which will need a second look, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who of course is an acknowledged expert in this particular subject whereas I, equally clearly, am not.

We have had an interesting debate and a large number of points have been raised. The provisions of the regulations dealing with very small homes represent a necessary tightening up of the present arrangements. They ensure that higher benefit limits will apply only where the level of provision and the costs of the home would justify those higher levels.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me whether a better way of controlling these homes would be through the registration system rather than through, as he suggested we were doing, the social security system. In fact we do indeed control them through registration which is why this order is only concerned with the very small homes: the ones to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred as those with one, two or three persons. I agreed very much with her implied comment on the social mix that is needed. I do not approve of homes being specialised because the residents happen to have arteriosclerosis, or whatever particular disease it happens to be. That probably is my answer to her question on paragraph 2(f)(ii). So far as what "throughout the day" and "on duty at night" mean, they mean that there must be someone available in the flesh, as it were, during the day but during the night they are allowed to be asleep as long as they are on call and can respond to whatever emergencies are thrown up.

The noble Baroness also asked what "relevant experience" meant for staff in very small homes. This will, as it is now, be a decision for the relevant adjudication officer. The chief adjudication officer will be advising that "relevant experience" should be regarded as experience in caring for the category or categories of persons for whom the home provides accommodation. These may be found in the same person or possibly not, but it will be for the relevant adjudication officer to make that decision. In reaching it he, or she, may seek the opinion of the local social services authority or other professional bodies. The regulations specifically exclude a close relative from hoarder status, so that is the answer to the noble Baroness's question about a decrepit relative. Equally a claimant must be a boarder before he, or she, can receive residential care rates.

I do not think that this is the moment to get into a tremendous educational-financial debate, but I take the points that have been made about the review of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science of the financial benefits for students. As to how far that has gone I am afraid that I cannot at this moment advise the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the adequacy of the disregard for students. Clearly, it is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, and indeed in my opening speech I did not claim that it was. I said that this is a practical way to ease the problem. I readily admit that it will be nice to go further when circumstances and financial arrangements allow.

Not surprisingly, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord turned to the lump sum payment order and the Christmas bonus. I accept that the value of the bonus has fallen since its introduction. That is because successive governments have put resources where, as the noble Baroness and I agree, they are most needed —into improving weekly benefits and services for elderly people. An increase of £1 in the Christmas bonus, or in any other payment being made to the same number of people, would cost £11 million, and restoration would cost £400 million at today's prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the Alliance manifesto. At the time I noted it with interest, especially the promise to pay a week's double pension at Christmas. However, I had difficulty in understanding it as it was phrased. The noble Lord's comments will help me understand it once I have taken the matter on board.

The great problem is that any lump sum payment will be made indiscriminately, whether people need it or not. I agree that it is equally welcome to both groups, but there is a certain indiscrimination which I do not find attractive. As regards the linking of basic pension increases to earnings, the present Administration came to office with a commitment to increase pensions in line with the movement in prices. This has been done despite the fact that pensions are being paid to many more pensioners than in 1978. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly that pensioners' living standards cannot be mentioned in terms of the basic pension alone; a point which I made fairly strongly in my opening speech.

Last, but by no means least, I was asked whether the draft regulations represented a cut. As far as I am able to establish, the answer to that question is no, but if I am wrong I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.