HL Deb 01 November 1988 vol 501 cc135-48

6.19 p.m.

The Countess of Mar rose to move, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988, laid before the House on 15th August 1988, and to lay before it in their place regulations which would include additional provision for the needs of disabled people who previously were able to receive additional income support over and above the normal applicable amount for persons in board and lodging accommodation.

The noble Countess said: My Lords, I move the Motion in this form rather than as an humble Address praying that the regulations be annulled. I realise that this statutory instrument contains a large number of regulations which amend the Income Support (General) Regulations with different effective dates, two of which have already passed. Had I prayed that they be annulled and had the Minister accepted my reasons, I understand that the whole instrument would have had to be withdrawn. As it is, I ask that an amendment be made to Regulation No. 27, which is not to be effective until 10th April 1989, to protect a very vulnerable group of claimants.

Anyone who has dealings with disabled people relying on income support might be forgiven for thinking that those who sit round the table in Whitehall start their deliberations with the question "How can we hit the disabled this time?". I prefer to think that they simply omit to take into account the effects that changes in regulations have made upon those who do not fall within the norm. We have already discussed the problems that are arising for respite care. Other difficulties occur on changes of address without any change in care provided, moving to a residential nursing home and the definition of a small residential home. Not enough thought seems to have been given to how these people are to live when their benefit is reduced. There is quite simply nothing else for them to fall back on.

At present nearly three-quarters of local authorities operate approved lodging schemes. Schemes are also run by charities such as Barnardo, Mencap and the Stonham Housing Association and the probation service. A panel of landladies is recruited and approval given for the type of accommodation and degree of care that the landlady will provide. When the lodger is elderly and frail or suffers from disability, he or she can claim up to an additional £17.50 over and above the standard board and lodging allowance for his or her area according to the degree of disability and the type of accommodation and care provided. These homes are not officially registered, but in practice are approved and regularly inspected by social services. The degree of care expected is not as great as that for small residential homes. The landlady might help with shopping, deal with correspondence, provide all meals and cope with the myriad problems that you and I would be able to take in our stride but that for the disabled person seem insuperable.

In the early years of care in the community, it was those with the least handicaps who were discharged from long stay hospitals into this type of accommodation. The objective was that they would eventually learn sufficient social skills to enable them to live independently. Many had become so institutionalised that they would always need some degree of care and support, and they have been unable to move on. Some ex-patients have lived in this type of accommodation for 10 to 15 years. The schemes have been so successful that landladies are now accepting clients with more severe or multiple handicaps and a need for a high level of care. This is the fastest growing sector in community care.

There are no accurate figures of the number of people in receipt of a higher rate of income support for accommodation in approved lodgings. The Department of Health and Social Security estimates that currently there are 7,500 claimants. Last year there were 2,300 new placings. It seems likely that the DHSS estimate is well below the actual figure. When the OPCS report, The provision of care in supported lodgings and unregistered homes, is published, perhaps we shall have an accurate assessment of the numbers involved.

The effects of Regulation No. 27 and the associated Schedule 1 must not be underestimated. Care costs are not rebated under the housing benefit scheme. Those who need a high level of care, particularly the frail elderly and those with severe mental or physical disabilities, will lose money. Some will be left without enough to pay for accommodation, let alone their personal needs. Other noble Lords will doubtless give examples in greater detail.

Many clients will have no option but to return to or remain in an institution simply because they cannot afford to remain in the community. Transitional protection will be of little help and in any case will be eroded by inflation. It is also likely to he lost if here is a change of circumstance such as a move to another landlady.

A very serious situation is developing. The whole basis of care in the community is being undermined by the policies of the DHSS. Social service departments arc now finding it impossible to recruit new landladies to their panels. Acute problems have been reported by Bolton, Coventry and Hereford and Worcester, and no doubt other local authorities will encounter difficulties sooner or later. No provision has been made for clients to claim income support to pay for their additional needs. Although social service departments at present top up social security benefits in some exceptional circumstances, their already overstretched budgets will not enable them to do so in all cases. If the Government intend that social service departments should be responsible for the care element of housing costs for the disabled living in approved lodgings, it would be helpful if they would say so now and ensure that local authorities have the funds to carry out their duties effectively. If nothing is done now, the DHSS will have to accept yet another unplanned-for liability because hospital administrators will not be able to discharge patients into the community with a good conscience. The probation service and charities will also have funding problems.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that I am not asking for the moon. The numbers concerned are relatively small. The benefits are already being paid to claimants. Without the change for which I ask, these people, who are terribly disadvantaged as it is, will suffer disproportionately and a coach and horses will be driven through the Government's care in the community policy.

Friends have tried to persuade me not to divide tonight in accordance with the convention of the House, but I understand that there is no such convention. I anxiously await the Minister's reply before I decide. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988, laid before the House on 15th August 1988, and to lay before it in their place regulations which would include additional provision for the needs of disabled people who previously were able to receive additional income support over and above the normal applicable amount for persons in board and lodging accommodation.—(The Countess of Mar.)

6.26 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the case so ably put forward by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. As I understand the position having listened to the noble Countess, disabled persons who receive board and lodging and care in private houses at present can receive an additional income support payment to help cover the cost of care. However, the new regulations provide for the same income support to be paid to all claimants, with help for board and lodging coming from housing benefit. Housing benefit relates only to rent, and makes no payment for care. Those who would have qualified for an extra income support payment for care under the new regulations will not receive any payment for care at all. Transitional protection will be provided for existing claimants. This indicates the Government's awareness that a problem is being created. Existing claimants on transitional protection will therefore gradually lose their payment for care. New claimants will be at a disadvantage from the start. There will be nothing for new claimants in care or for those in supported lodgings from next April.

The Motion calls for the withdraw al of the new regulations and their replacement by regulations that would again provide for additional income support over and above the normal applicable amount for persons in board and lodging. This seems to me to be an urgent necessity. I urge the Government to accept the Motion.

6.28 p.m.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Mar has highlighted a matter of very grave concern to many people. The change to benefit payments for people living in board and lodgings will leave many disabled and elderly people out of pocket. This will cause severe problems for people living in so-called supported lodgings where the landlord or landlady provides a degree of care. As the noble Countess has said, the DHSS estimates that there are currently 7,500 such claimants. This is a form of care that is expected to grow as care in the community policies take effect.

To leave claimants with little or no money would make a mockery of the Government's care in the community policy. Are the Government aware that homelessness among disabled people is double that of the rest of the population? Disabled people are already forming a large proportion of the homeless in Britain's major cities. The director of Shelter has predicted that the number will double next year. Special attention must therefore be paid to their needs.

How can people with disabilities live in the community if they cannot pay their costs? For example, a 17-year-old severely disabled person in a wheelchair who has recently left a social services home to live with a family would see his or her disposable income drop from £11.50 to £4.45 per week. A 22-year-old who is mentally handicapped but capable of living outside hospital with a high level of support would lose £9.50 per week, leaving him or her with only £5 a week for personal needs. I repeat, how can those people afford to live in the community?

Under the current arrangements, money for the care element is built into the system, but after April 1989 that element will no longer be available. That is yet another change in the benefit arrangements which will make community care even more difficult. Community care is a welcome policy development for many disabled people who look forward to a more independent life outside institutional care. However, it is a step which should be encouraged only if the financial support available is adequate.

I understand that 50 per cent. of current hostel places will disappear under the Government's benefit changes to be introduced next April, which will surely put more strain upon board and lodging accommodation. The need for supported lodging provision will grow as people are discharged from long-stay hospitals and other institutions. The under-25s will be especially affected as they will receive a lower rate of income support and extra resources will be needed for local authorities' leaving care schemes to operate.

In view of the fact that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys social services division shows that there are now twice as many disabled people in Great Britain, the Government must act swiftly to change the income support regulations.

6.32 p.m.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, I support the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and want to highlight a charity with which I am involved in the City of Birmingham which feels aggrieved by the regulations. The St. Basil's charitable organisation is one of the foremost agencies working with the young homeless in Birmingham. It has projects on 13 different sites throughout the city. Every year St. Basil's accommodates at least 800 young people in need and at risk in the community. They are all aged between 16 and 25. In addition to the 800 who physically go to St. Basil's, it gives information and advice about homelessness, through its information service, and support to a further 12,000 young people. Many of the young people who go to St. Basil's are unqualified and inexperienced in employment and training terms. Most of them arrive at St. Basil's as a result of problems in the family.

As noble Lords are aware there is an increasing trend of problems with stepfathers and stepmothers. Most of the young people who go to the centres are unqualified and unemployed. Many of them have come through child care through the local authority, foster homes or the probation service. The Home Office gives support to St. Basil's for the work it does for those who go through the probation service.

Most of the young people who go to St. Basil's are inexperienced and heavily traumatised as a result of the events that have made them homeless. They have minimal skills and very little life experience with which to sustain themselves. It is important that we remember that a number of girls with a history of sexual abuse are going to the hostels. That is disturbing for St. Basil's. The stay of the young people is fairly short. It is for a maximum of one year or a minimum of one month. During that time, counselling and help go on.

I want to emphasise that the young people are placed on government schemes as soon as they are rehabilitated. Immediately the trauma has disappeared they are placed on government schemes. The young people have not deliberately chosen to be unemployed. We could perhaps say that life has become too much for them. St. Basil's is not trying to cosset them. It is implicit in their training that they are placed on government training schemes as soon as possible. St. Basil's does not encourage them to be workshy.

The regulations mean that young people between the ages of 16 and 18 must be in full-time work or education or on YTS. As I have said, many of St. Basil's young people have suffered such appalling handicaps that they are not fit to go on the schemes immediately they arrive. The new regulations threaten to deprive young people of support and rehabilitation. Although I have spoken about St. Basil's because I am especially interested in that charity, there are other charities, in particular, Stonham and NACRO, which are also expressing deep concern and are disturbed about the possibility that they will, like St. Basil's, be financially unable to keep going and help the young people if the regulations come into effect in their present form. I hope that the Minister will take serious note of the efforts made by the noble Countess in bringing this matter before the House.

6.37 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I am sure that we are most grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for bringing this important matter before the House. The noble Countess is not the only one who is concerned about the change in the situation. RADAR and other respected organisations which specialise in help for the disabled are also concerned.

We realise that the regulations do not come into effect until next April and that they will affect only people in ordinary board and lodging and not those in special residential homes or hostels, which would seem to most of us to be an important part of the transit into ordinary community life for disabled people which the Government supported as a result of the Griffiths Report. We also want to support that trend. I am sure that the whole House wants to see the transition into ordinary life made available to all those who can enjoy life outside institutions and specialised homes.

What worries some of us is that the plan is to separate income support and housing benefit. I hope that the Minister will tell us that we are wrong because there is nothing I enjoy more than having the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, tell me that I am wrong. People who come within the order in future will have to go through the dual argument. One will be about the amount of income support they will obtain from one authority. They will then have to turn to the local authority to ask for housing benefit. I do not often agree with things that are said on the opposite side of the House, but I have also thought-as a former civil servant I can say this-that if we could minimise Civil Service interference and administration costs that would be for the good of everyone.

To put people who come out of care, mental institutions and prisons through a double hoop before they receive the money they need on which to live is administratively stupid. Has "board and lodging" been sufficiently defined? I know some people in board and lodging who only get breakfast; sometimes breakfast is a gas ring, a tea hag and a kettle. Then they have to go out and buy food, which does not always seem possible if they are losing the income that they need. There is confusion among some of the organisations which are expert in the field as to how the disability allowance will help, with separate claims having been made.

My noble friend Lady Fisher spoke particularly of young people, but this applies equally to elderly disabled people, many of whom I know have been in institutions for very many years. They need a long time for rehabilitation. I know an old gentleman who was let out, if I may use that phrase, of an institution. He did not even know what pennies were. He went inside, as he told me, "before all this nonsense came about". He hardly knew what a belisha beacon was. These are all ordinary things which we take for granted.

During the period of rehabilitation and trying to build a bridge into ordinary community living, it would be unfortunate—and I am sure noble Lords on all sides will agree—if we added to all the anxieties about adjustment, problems of finance and how disabled people are to get the money to buy the necessities of life, such as a new pair of shoes. I would not even mind if it were a bottle of beer. This is something which becomes enormously serious to the people we are trying to help.

There may be ways that the Minister can suggest of helping these people so that they do not actually lose money under the new arrangements. I pay tribute to many of the people I suppose we call landladies when we talk about board and lodging. Many local authorities are trying to build up lists of what we might almost call foster parents who will take on these people in their own homes, especially young people going through the transition from an institution to the community. We should make sure that they have all the help and encouragement they need.

I must ask the Minister why there seems to be a rule that if people in board and lodging change their addresses, the whole process may have to start all over again. There may be some good reason for that, such as registering a new address. However, I think it would be a pity if there were a delay in receiving benefit while the administration drags on its way.

The last question I wish to ask the Minister is whether he is satisfied that in the cases we are talking about tonight the social fund is making the contribution which we hoped it would. We were told that one of the main reasons for setting up the social fund was to provide community care grants which were to be particularly targeted at the disabled. Perhaps he will tell us what the take-up of social fund grants has been for rehabilitation into the community of the disabled. I understand that it has been nowhere near 100 per cent. Perhaps the community care grant should be better publicised and the guidelines given to local offices re-examined. With only £60 million granted for the whole year, it should not be difficult for the Government and local officers to find enough people on whom to spend this money. It is important to know the effect of this policy, which was a very important part of the arguments on the setting up of the social fund.

Then there is the complication that sometimes people leave hospital with an invalidity benefit. It may be that when they are settled in the community they end up worse off under the arrangements for income support plus housing benefit than they were with the invalidity pension that they were receiving earlier.

We ask these questions with good will because I am sure that on all sides of the House we wish to ensure that the best is done for people who are trying to make their way back to ordinary life in the community. I know that is the Government's wish, or at least the Griffiths Report seems to suggest it is. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us tonight.

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, I seem to remember that it was less than a week ago that in answer to a supplementary question on the up-rating Statement from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I said that your Lordships regularly target your thoughts on disabled people. Little did I think then that we would be returning so immediately to this group of disadvantaged people.

I was totally unrepentant then as a targeter. I am totally unrepentant now. That is why I welcome the Motion before your Lordships' House which enables us to debate the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988. These regulations were laid before Parliament in a block, as the noble Countess will know, on 15th August, along with the Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations and the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations which contain a range of similar provisions common to all three sets of income-related benefits. The major change in both the income support and housing benefit amendments concerns the transfer of help with accommodation costs for income support recipients in board and lodging accommodation to the housing benefit scheme from April 1989.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is quite right to point out that there is enormous confusion. It is not easy to define exactly what is meant by "Board and lodging accommodation". That is very much the point behind these regulations. The evidence is that there is very little difference between most lodgings and other types of accommodation. Why then should different rules be applied to paying their benefit? As for those in caring establishments, as I shall be zeroing in on this point a little later in my speech, we shall be providing protection to any who receive less benefit for as long as they remain in supported lodgings.

Going back to this block of three orders, the remaining provisions are needed to correct minor or technical deficiencies in the original sets of income-related benefit regulations. These changes are generally beneficial, as the noble Countess was good enough to say. I am sure that your Lordships will understand if I do not attempt to describe them in any detail. Instead, like those speakers in the short debate, I shall concentrate on the more substantial changes—those affecting people in board and lodging accommodation.

First, I must disabuse the noble Countess; the objective of Regulation 27 is not to knock the disabled again. I think I have quoted her accurately. On the contrary, my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled and I take great care not to disadvantage the disadvantaged, whether they be the disabled or those disadvantaged because of any physical or pecuniary problem. However, that is not to say that there should never be any changes. Regulation 27 may be only two lines and one word long but it affects the very people about whom the noble Countess and I are concerned. I shall explain a little later why it does not affect the people with whom the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, was concerned.

I think it would be helpful if I started by giving the House both the historical background and the principle behind the changes. When we refer to people in board and lodging accommodation, we mean those 120,000 who receive income support and live in hotels, guest-houses, lodging houses or similar accommodation, as well as those who live in the caring landlady schemes, as several noble Lords have pointed out. In addition we include people living in accommodation who pay a charge for lodging and at least some cooked or prepared meals. The regulations we are debating tonight do not affect people living in hostels, residential care homes, nursing homes and Part III' accommodation provided by local authorities.

The provision of special higher benefit rates for boarders in the supplementary benefit scheme had a troubled history. Special rates of benefit encouraged claimants to seek this type of accommodation, often at prices which those in work could not afford. Some proprietors of hotels and guest houses were quick to take advantage of the higher rate payable and advertised for Department of Social Security clientele. As a result the number of boarders increased dramatically, with corresponding escalation in public expenditure. Of particular concern were young people trapped in expensive and often inappropriate types of accommodation for long periods, with no incentive to seek employment.

Changes were introduced in 1985 which fixed centrally determined local limits for help with the charges via supplementary benefit. in addition, the length of time young claimants were able to receive help as boarders was limited. These changes were successful in halting the rapid and inappropriate growth in numbers.

However, the fact remained that this group of claimants were like other claimants, yet received markedly different rates of benefit. Despite living in similar accommodation and having similar circumstances, the rules for calculating their benefit depended on the fact that their landlord sometimes provided them with a meal. Often this meal was a token offering—such as a loaf of bread each week for breakfast. In a study published in 1985 by the Department of the Environment, standards of amenities in accommodation provided a good example of the similarity of facilities. For instance, 89 per cent. of bedsits had adequate space heating compared to 99 per cent. of board and lodging; and 80 per cent. of bedsits had adequate food preparation facilities compared to 84 per cent. of board and lodging. The only real difference was who helped whom with their accommodation costs—the Department of Social Security in the case of boarders, but everyone else in rented accommodation turned to housing benefit.

In December 1986, as part of the social security review, a consultation document was issued which proposed that for equity of treatment, boarders should be subsumed into the income support scheme which subsequently replaced supplementary benefit in April 1988. This was a simplified system of helping with claimants' day-to-day living expenses and it seemed an ideal opportunity, as part of the streamlining, to abolish the special rates for boarders. Help with accommodation costs would be available from the reformed housing benefit scheme.

But the Government listened to the concerns expressed at that time by the local authority associations. In their response to the consultation document the authorities requested that any change be deferred until April 1989, by which time the new procedures introduced in April 1988 for the reformed housing benefit scheme would have settled down. The Government were mindful of these requests, and decided to carry forward a special scheme for boarders within the new income support scheme until April 1989. The time has now come for a change.

I would say, again in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that we considered the question of preempting decisions on Sir Roy Griffith's report before announcing our decision to transfer help with housing costs for supported lodgers to the housing benefit scheme. The arrangements for the transfer are such that we cannot maintain the status quo for this group, as they are not separately identified within the income support scheme at present. New arrangements within income support for supported lodgers would be difficult to police and would give rise to pressure for similar treatment from other groups of disabled people.

So from April 1989 local authorities will administer housing benefit to boarders on income support for the first time. It is important to remember that dealing with boarders will not be a new experience for them as, I remind the House, they have always helped working boarders. However, I can assure your Lordships that close liaison was maintained with local authorities during the development of the new arrangements.

I now turn to the main concern of the noble Countess. The regulations contain detailed provisions for the protection of total benefit levels at the time of change. These concentrate on vulnerable groups, but especically those elderly and disabled people living with landladies who provide a degree of personal care and support in addition to accommodation and board. I note that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has shown her customary interest in the impact on disabled people, in this instance for those living in board and lodging accommodation with caring landladies. I think it would be be helpful to contrast present benefit arrangements for this group with those we intend to introduce next April.

At present, people living with caring landladies are treated in the same way as anyone else living in lodgings. Charges can be met to the appropriate limit which can be extended by up to £1750 a week to meet, or help to meet, a higher charge where the person is elderly or disabled. I stress that this extension is available only to meet the boarding charge and does not increase the individual boarder's cash-in-hand: this consists of a standard personal allowance of £11.50. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, took that point and I am grateful to him for recognising it.

We consider these existing arrangements are a poor way of targeting resources. For example, there is no test of whether or not care is provided in determining the amount of benefit which can be paid. A fit pensioner living in a commercial hotel can receive exactly the same amount of benefit as a disabled person living with a caring landlady. That cannot be right. Furthermore, none of these people has access to income support premiums which are designed to meet the extra needs of the elderly and the disabled. Again, that is quite wrong; they should be able to have access to those premiums.

By enabling these people to claim normal income support and housing benefit they will become eligible for premiums and the higher income support personal allowances. Overall we estimate that just over half of those living with caring landladies will be better off because of this change. But because the amount of housing benefit which is paid depends on the value of the accommodation and the services provided, not all people in supported lodgings will gain. We are, therefore, providing long-term transitional protection for any people in this vulnerable group who would otherwise lose benefit overall. They will continue to be protected while they remain in this type of supportive environment. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that they will continue to be protected, even if they move to other supported lodgings in the future. The change will come about only when their circumstances change, not their residence.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, not for the first time, zeroed in on transitional protection for losers. As I have said, we shall be providing protection for those people in supported lodgings who receive less benefit after next april. They will continue to receive that protection for as long as they remain in that kind of accommodation. The overall effect of the changes for that group as a whole, over half of whom are estimated to gain, will be to provide an extra £1 million in benefit for them.

It is true that the long-term protection provided for those in supported lodgings will not be index-linked, and will be eroded by the annual up-rating of age allowances and premiums. The noble Lord will remember that I made the point last Thursday that it is important to get people out of transitional protection as soon as possible, so that they have real increases at the time of up-rating. But I must stress that that is the normal form of transitional protection that we are giving in these board and lodging cases, and that it will give both claimants and scheme organisers time to adjust to the new arrangements. Our aim in providing long-term transitional protection is to protect existing client-carer relationships, and as a result we estimate that £1 million extra in income support will be paid to this group during the first year following the change.

After next April, those who organise supported lodging schemes will be aware of the new benefit arrangements and will be able to advise their clients accordingly, whether the client is from the organisation that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, described or indeed any other. Many schemes are run by local authorities which are in a better position than local social security offices to ensure value for money in such situations. Research shows that just over half of those local authorities which run schemes already fund them in whole or in part. They will continue to be able to do so after next April. The consideration is entirely as it always has been—in the lap of local authorities.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made the point that housing benefit cannot cover care costs, to which I think I must answer that, in general, service charges are only eligible for help through housing benefit where they are compulsory, and for services which are a necessary part of the accommodation.

Charges for personal care are generally excluded, with two exceptions. A charge for general counselling or support provided by the landlord, caretaker, warden or other support staff can be included if they spend most of their time on accommodation-related services. A charge for an alarm system may also be eligible if the system is provided in accommodation which is particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled people.

The OPCS report was mentioned by the noble Countess. She asked whether the study will give an estimate of the number of people placed in supported lodgings. The report has already been made available in draft form and was out for discussion with the local authorities which provided most of the information therein. It shows that at any one time about 2,300 people are in local authority approved schemes. I should add that I expect the report to be published in a full and unexpurgated version later this week.

I made the point a little earlier that local authorities, through their social services departments, are far better placed than Department of Social Security offices to decide how care of this kind should be provided. As the noble Countess observed, many authorities already fund these costs. I repeat that it is entirely up to them whether they continue to fund them. I also said earlier that we are not talking about hostels. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, claimed that 50 per cent. of hostels will close. That will not happen as a result of the regulations we are debating tonight. It is true that the Government announced last week that they would defer proposed changes affecting hostel dwellers until after April 1989. We shall be considering more fully the effects of hostels' finances. The noble Lady will no doubt recall that there is a consultation document on this subject, the consultation period for which has now closed. We shall take full account of the views of everybody who wrote in with comments.

I shall close my remarks by reaffirming that the changes we shall make to the way boarders on income support receive help with accommodation costs can only be seen as progress. It is a substantial step towards making the social security system neutral as to accommodation type. We shall at last have equity of treatment so that the same income support rules will apply to anyone living in rented accommodation—whether it be lodgings, a guest-house, hotel, flat or bedsit. The people who fall into the category covered by the Motion will not lose out in cash terms. Far from it. We estimate that just over half will gain in disposable income, which is exactly what the noble Countess would wish.

I therefore commend the regulations to the House. I would only add that in the social security field we learn by experience. Ever since Beveridge we have learnt by experience. That is why there are so many changes coming before your Lordships every year. We shall watch the operation of the regulations like a hawk to make sure that the people about whom she is concerned, and indeed any others, are not disadvantaged by them.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer my question? If it was an unfair question, perhaps he will write to me. What proportion of the social fund so far has been made available for community care grants? When the Bill was going through the House we were told that this was to be a major objective of the social fund.

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. However, I do not know the up-to-date figures. She was right to say that £60 million was set aside for this year. If one divides that amount by 12, one sees that something of the order of two-thirds has been spent on a month by month basis. If we were an uncaring Government, as the noble Baroness would publicly expect, we would as a result have chopped the £60 million in our plans for 1989–90. We have done nothing of the kind. It is a new scheme which will take time to bed down. She will be delighted to know that £60 million is in the budget for community care grants for next year, as indeed it is for this year.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification. He said that people who at present receive income support with a higher allowance will qualify for special premiums for income support once they are changed over on to housing benefit. Does that mean that the under-25s, who stand to lose a lot, and the 16 and 17 year-olds, who have a negative income, will be able to claim additional income support to bring their incomes up to a reasonable level?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, what it means is that from April next year those who are eligible for income support on the normal basis of income support will get it. The present income support only arrangements will as a result disappear. The structure will be in place for helping people not only with their board and lodging costs through housing benefit but also in regard to what I call disposable income, after they have become eligible for income support. That must be right.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and also to noble Lords who have taken part in this valuable debate. The noble Lord thought that I thought that he set out to clobber the disabled. I did not, so I should like to disabuse him of that thought. I cannot understand why he found it so difficult to identify the people about whom we are talking tonight. They will all be receiving a higher rate of income support in their housing element and should be easily identified. He spoke about transitional protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, this gives no cover to new entrants to the supported landlady scheme. I am still puzzled about what will happen to them.

The Minister said that local authorities were already supporting quite a number of clients in supported lodgings. I feel that he has not grasped the point that local authority social services departments are already strapped for money. It was reported in The Times yesterday that certain authorities—a survey was carried out on London authorities—could not deal with child abuse cases. In one borough some 121 cases were waiting for a case worker. If they cannot afford something of such importance, how will they be able to afford to pay extra money to the disabled for board and lodgings?

I shall not divide the House tonight but I am still very unhappy about what is being done. As the noble Lord said, we must wait to see what happens. It used to be said in the Post Office in relation to union negotiations, "We shall see what happens in the light of working circumstances." I think that we shall have to wait and see, but the noble Lord can expect me to come back again if things do go wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.