HL Deb 12 March 1987 vol 485 cc1193-201

6.58 p.m

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Trumpington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of section 32(2) of Social Security Act 1986]:

Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 6, after ("amounts") insert ("including in the case of maternity expenses, a prescribed amount in relation to those under 16 years,").

The noble Lord said: I shall not rehearse all the grounds fully and persuasively urged at Second Reading for making the maternity grant payment direct to the very small number of mothers—some 1,400 in 1985—under the age of 16. I shall limit my support of the amendment which would achieve this purpose to answering the main arguments deployed against this proposal on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, when replying to the Second Reading debate. He said that such a grant would overturn a longstanding principle of supplementary benefit, that a mother under the age of 16 remains the dependant of her parent or guardian.

In examining this argument, we stumble first upon an inconsistency in social and legal values. The law of the family imposes the responsibility to care for their children upon all mothers, irrespective of age, and under Section 17(1)(6) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, a mother of any age is liable to maintain her child. Therefore, the law appears to require independence from the mother under the age of 16.

Moreover, there is a second inconsistency in the noble Lord's argument. It is to be noted that when the Committee on One-Parent Families considered this question it was told by the social insurance authorities that direct payment to the mother under 16 would be, and I quote from the report, an assault upon the national insurance scheme", because at that time the payment depended upon the contribution record of the mother.

When the Social Security Bill 1973 was going through your Lordships' House an amendment to the effect that maternity grant should be payable without regard to contributions was defeated, because, it was said, by removing the condition of contribution a contributory principle in the national insurance scheme would be weakened. Despite these arguments, the Committee on One-Parent Families recommended that the grant in the form in which it then existed should be paid direct to mothers under the age of 16.

I do not know how long a principle of supplementary benefit has to stand before it becomes long-standing, but this one has undergone a remarkable transformation during the past 13 years. Governments have shifted the grounds of what has turned out to be a very flexible principle indeed. Against it may be set the simple principle that the law makes all mothers fully responsible for the care of their children and that it is hard to think of a more certain passport to independence than motherhood.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, spoke as if all such mothers were either at home with their parents or in care. We know that that is by no means the case, though unhappily there seems to be no accurate information about what happens to these youngsters in the real world. As far I know, the Church of England Children's Society is one of the few organisations working in the field with its safe home project for children. That society has estimated, in the roughest possible way from a survey of data which it obtained from the police about youngsters reported missing, that there are between 75,000 and 80,000 youngsters under the age of 18 who are away from home and not in care. It further estimates that one half of those are girls. How old they are, what proportion of them are under the age of 16, how many of them are pregnant and how many of them go through their maternities neither at home nor in care, nobody seems to know.

It is a shameful reflection that the Church of England Children's Society is having to do today exactly what it was set up to undertake in 1881; namely, to care for uncared-for children on the streets. I am told by the society that it is dealing with children on the streets of London who have been wandering and living like Victorian street arabs for two years or more. I hope that the pressure which the society is attempting to exert on the Home Office and on the DHSS to undertake the task of collecting information about this situation will have some effect. I very much hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply will he able to say something about the intentions of her department.

Against those considerations I am not at all persuaded by the arguments that were used by the Government on Second Reading. I do not for a moment pretend that this is an easy issue. It is one of those issues on which reasonable people can disagree reasonably. One's mind has to be made up on the balance of advantage. However, I point out that every independent body which has considered the question over the past dozen or so years has come down in favour of paying the maternity grant, in whatever form it happened to be available during the period, directly to the mother under the age of 16. I have tabled this amendment in the hope that the noble Baroness will be persuaded to reconsider the stance which the Government have taken in the light of these further arguments that I have presented. I beg to move.

Baroness Jeger

We on these Benches support the amendment and do so for several reasons. This is a very complicated and difficult question. I must say to begin with that we are not asking for payment to be made to young mothers under the age of 16 if they have over the £500 capital allowance; but that is very unlikely.

We must ask the Minister whether the payment of £80 will be made automatically where the pregnant child is in a family. Will the family, the mother or the father receive the £80; or will it be mixed up with the family credit or family support and create problems about them receiving the money?

What will happen if circumstances change during the pregnancy? Let us suppose that a girl aged under 16 is living in a family and her father obtains a job half-way through her pregnancy so that the family is not on social security or on what is called the passport idea? Does this girl or her family receive the £80, or do they receive nothing? Is there any right of appeal if she is living in a very impoverished family where more than £80 is needed to get the requisite help? Will the girl be able to apply to the social fund for single payments if needed?

Let us suppose that the girl is not living in a family and perhaps is being fostered or is in care. What then happens to the £80? Does it go to the social security people who are looking after her? I have to ask: what happens if she is just over 16 years old when the baby is born? Is there no provision for the fact that this girl may start her pregnancy when she is 15 and then be, say, 16 plus one month when the baby is born?

Those may seem to be very simple questions but they are considered very fair questions by those of us who are concerned and trying to help young girls who are going through such a very difficult situation. I am sure that the Minister will answer those questions tonight as kindly as she always does.

Baroness Lane-Fox

I should like to speak against the amendment. If the amendment is successful it will in effect bring a reward to those who have broken what are the unwritten laws about age. Those age rules exist for a number of good reasons, among which is the desire to ensure that children have a chance of being born to responsible educated parents. My memory of being a young teenager is that one needed to be constantly aware of the rules of the game. This amendment represents a slackening of the rules at a time when the climate of opinion appears to be moving the other way.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I rise to support this amendment. I have put my name to this amendment because I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage of the Social Security Bill in June last year. I should like first to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I cannot believe that she meant to say that £80 would be a reward for a hapless child who probably through ignorance or neglect has become pregnant. Does she not understand that our concern is for the baby of someone who must have come from a background of ignorance and neglect? Is it not the child whom all of us are trying to protect with this amendment?

Baroness Lane-Fox

Will the noble Baroness give way for one moment? I suggest that independence is regarded as a great reward for a number of young people. I am not talking about the sum of £80. I am regarding the actual nomination as an independent person as that reward.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I see exactly what the noble Baroness means, but I should like to point out that as I understand it the maternity payment is specifically intended to meet the needs of the baby and should therefore not be viewed as a payment which is given because of the independence of the mother.

I should like to stress again, as I did at the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill, how vulnerable is this small group of very young people. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, made the point that every safeguard should be provided for the babies who are born in such terrible circumstances as those of a mother who is so young. It seems quite wrong to take away anything that could help a young girl to be an adequate mother and to safeguard the health of her baby. I remember making a long speech about the risks to the health of babies who are born to such very young mothers. I shall not repeat my remarks because I suspect that my noble friend will be giving those details in a moment.

However, I end by saying that I know that the Minister of State in another place wrote to the director of the National Council for One-Parent Families giving as one of the reasons for not allowing this payment as an independent payment that antenatal care and health education were equally as important as, if not more important than, a cash payment for this very vulnerable group of young mothers and their babies. I think we agree that it is very important, but I should also point out that school-age mothers are those who are least likely to attend antenatal clinics and benefit from that kind of support. For them a cash payment may be the only source of support that they receive.

I hope that the Minister will consider these arguments. Those of us who have put them forward feel most deeply that this is a group of very young people who need to be safeguarded in order that they can look after their babies—babies who will certainly be the victims if their mothers do not get all the help that they can.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am very hopeful that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply to this amendment, in view of the words of the Minister for Social Security in another place, Mr. John Major, on 9th February: I am prepared to say that I shall consider further any fresh arguments that may arise".—[Official Report,Commons, 9/2/87; col. 93.] It is fair to say that he did not give any promise, but he did give that very open undertaking to listen if not to comply with the pleas that would be put before him, as indeed they have been put before him through the noble Baroness so eloquently today by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and other speakers who followed him.

The crux of the matter is quite simple. There are two principles. There is the old-established principle of supplementary benefit, which has been the sticking point so far, that the child's benefits go to the guardian or parent even if the child is a mother herself. Against that there is the statutory requirement that the mother of a child is responsible for its care and provision. That requirement is contained in Section 17(1) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Where there are two principles which conflict, as those two do, very careful thought must be given as to whether the non-statutory principle (of supplementary benefit) however long-standing, should or should not prevail over the statutory provision (of the 1976 Act).

I should have thought that on merit alone the statutory principle that has existed since 1976 should prevail over the principle of supplementary benefit, which as I think has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has been flexible in the past and indeed can be made sufficiently flexible now to be accommodated to the Act of 1976. On those grounds alone I very much hope that the statutory principle will prevail in this case.

I was very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said when he remarked that this concerns only a very small number of people—some 1,400 young girls. It is also true to say that these young people are not necessarily living at home with their parents or in care. It is that group who are neither at home nor in care that we must find and to whom this payment should go personally.

For those reasons I should have thought that this amendment was, in the words of Mr. John Major, something that the Minister would be well advised to consider. Fresh arguments have been put forward today. It may be that the Minister cannot accept this amendment, but I trust that she will offer some hope and include its substance in future regulations.

Lord Kilmarnock

All the arguments have been extremely ably put by my noble friend Lord McGregor and other noble Lords. From the number of noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this amendment, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that there is an area of genuine concern. It seems wrong that the passport to this benefit should be based purely on the parents' circumstances for anything to happen; in other words, that they should be in receipt of supplementary benefit. We should be concerned with the mother and the child. That point has been made by practically every noble Lord.

We should be concerned with the children because the neonatal death rate for children of mothers under the age of 16 is 50 per cent. above the average. Infant mortality for all mothers is 10 per 1,000; infant mortality for mothers under 16 is 15 per 1,000. On my calculations, that is a 50 per cent. increase. It is the technical point of the far greater likelihood of the early death of a child born to mothers in that age group. On those grounds, I say that the money should go to the mother. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I do not think we should be making moralistic judgments about whether that mother should be a mother at that age and should have had that child. We are dealing with the 1,400 mothers in those circumstances, as my noble friend pointed out.

It may well be that social habits should change in the way that the noble Baroness would like. But we are actually dealing with a small group of disadvantaged mothers probably from poor backgrounds. We should not be making moralistic judgments and penalising those girls and their offspring. I am sure that the Minister will have noted the feeling on all sides of the Committee that the Government must take this matter on board. We hope to hear from her that they will do so, and that the position of these mothers and their children will be taken into account.

Lord Rea

I should like to add one or two words in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. Noble Lords may be interested to know that I raised the question of this amendment with my group practice team at lunchtime today. The group includes doctors, health visitors and social workers. They all felt that these young mothers should be entitled to receive the £80 grant themselves.

Young mothers may have become pregnant for a variety of reasons. When they have the baby, it is surprising how quickly they gather a sense of responsibility and want to do the best that they can for the child. Their maturity will be increased if they feel that the early adult role which has been thrust upon them is recognised by the state through the provision of this grant. The Government need not worry that the money will be dissipated and wrongly used. My experience of these young girls is that they are extremely keen to do the best that they can for their children. They are often somewhat amazed that the child has arrived. They want to succeed in making a good job of being a mother.

I am not sure whether the wording of the amendment is the right way to put the principle into the Bill, but it would be nice if the noble Baroness could give us some hope.

Baroness Trumpington

I am, of course, aware of the deep feelings to which this situation gives rise. I am also aware that my honourable friend the Minister said that he would consider the matter, but he was not convinced by the arguments and he wrote to the National Council for One Parent Families to say so.

The assumption beyond the amendment is that pregnancy and motherhood, of themselves, make a girl of 16 into an adult. Not all all. Girls of that age are still very young, and by the circumstances of their pregnancy are in need of health care, counselling and support, both material and financial. For the majority of those young people, the close family provides that essential support. If, sadly, the family is unable or unwilling to provide it, the local authority has a duty to step in.

Where a girl under 16 is in the care of the local authority, voluntarily because the parents have requested it, or because she has been committed to care, the local authority is fully responsible for the welfare of the mother and the baby and for their necessary accommodation and maintenance. This may be by placement with a foster family, in a residential home, in a mother and baby home or in independent living. Health care and health education, to ensure that antenatal care is understood, should be available to all mothers. They are especially important to help those young mothers give the baby the best possible start.

Alas, I find it unrealistic of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, to assume that the payment of maternity expenses would cause those children who are missing from their homes to come forward and claim the amount.

The amendment would not directly improve the lot of mothers under 16 who need it most—those living in poor families. For them, we have made the full provision that one would expect of a reasonable government. Where a young mother under 16 is in a low-income family, receiving one of the passport benefits; that is supplementary benefit (income support, in future) or family income supplement (family credit, in future), the family will be eligible for a maternity payment for the baby.

Additionally, where the family is on income support, the young person under 16 will continue to receive free milk tokens during pregnancy, and all mothers will be able to pick up free vitamin pills from health clinics. That represents appropriate provision for those under 16.

It is true that supplementary benefit legislation places a duty on parents to maintain their children, but it is not reasonable to require young people under the age of 16 to maintain themselves or their children financially. In practice, it is the responsibility of the parents or the local authority to do so.

There is the right of appeal to a tribunal against the refusal of a maternity payment. It is intended to fix the amount of the payment in regulations.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the mother or the father can receive the £80. If a girl has a baby at the age of 16 plus one month, the payment can be claimed. If the father obtains a job, the family may still qualify for family income supplement. A girl in care does not receive the £80. The intention is that the £80 should be paid as a reasonable contribution towards maternity expenses. Having rationalised help with maternity expenses into a much higher fiat-rate grant than at present, it would not make sense, in effect, to continue the present single payment for maternity costs, with individual totting up of the cost of nappies and so on, alongside the new scheme.

I should stress that there will be regular help from weekly benefits with the cost of looking after the baby—for instance, child benefit, supplementary benefit or income support—with extra amounts for each child and so on. If the family concerned is under wider financial pressure there is nothing to stop them being considered for single payments or social fund payments for essential items such as beds or cookers. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that the number of under-16 mothers in 1985 was 1,403—not so very few, sadly enough.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke about the children of young mothers being at higher risk. We can produce all kinds of reasons why children of young mothers may be at risk, but I do not think that the £80 payment, any more than the £25 grant, is a crucial factor in removing these risks. Health education and the availability of advice and support at the early stage of pregnancy are likely to be much more important. It is important to remember that even though the £25 grant is presently available, a supplementary benefit single payment is not payable now unless the girl is in a family on supplementary benefit.

There are other arguments against accepting the amendment, which were considered carefully last year during the passage of the social security legislation. First, it would overturn a long-standing principle of supplementary benefit which we consider to be important; namely, that a girl under 16, even if she has given birth to a baby, remains the dependant of her parent or guardian. Secondly, it would breach the principle that benefits paid from the social fund should go to those who are in need, not to those who are not. Thirdly, we would not want to treat the under-16s more generously than the over-16s. Fourthly, it would be a complicating factor to devise a different claiming system for under-16 mothers because eligibility for income support or family income support could not be the passport. All this adds up to a convincing case against the amendment. I ask the Committee to reject it.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was rising to make an observation. I thought that he was invisible to the noble Lord in the Chair.

Lord McGregor of Durris

I am exceedingly disappointed by the reply of the noble Baroness, and—I hope that she will forgive my use of the words—by the stale grounds on which she rejects the amendment.

The noble Baroness corrected a statistic. I mentioned a figure of some 1,400; she refers to a figure of 1,403. Even if we are to use that degree of precision, it still remains the case, despite what she said, that it is a small number—my recollection is that it is about 2.4 per cent.—out of total births to single women. It is not a large proportion. I should have thought that all the difficulties that she mentioned of paying benefit to such a number could be overcome by a very small amount of creative administrative talent.

I also found her argument on a fundamental point—namely, when a mother under the age of 16 becomes an adult—purely semantic. A mother under 16, by the fact of motherhood, has assumed whether she likes it or not, adult responsibilities. The noble Lord, on the basis of the experience of his group practice, said that nothing makes a person become an adult more quickly than having to assume adult responsibilities. I am unwilling to be persuaded by the argument of the noble Baroness.

Finally, surely the payment to such a girl could do a great deal to give her psychological support at a time when she needs all the strengths that she can possibly possess. I am exceedingly disappointed by the unsympathetic reply of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.