Housing

HC Deb 19 July 1988 vol 137 cc1051-73 10.15 pm

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)

I beg to move, That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 909), dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this we are to discuss the two motions on social security: That the Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 908), dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked. That the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 910) dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked.

Mrs. Beckett

The motions have been tabled to allow the House to explore the impact of the massive cuts that the Government made in April in the living standards of those in the poorest and most vulnerable groups in our society. I think that it would help the House if I made it clear at the outset that, although the Opposition hoped to be able to focus attention on the Government's record, we do not intend to jeopardise the meagre concessions that the Government are prepared to make by voting against the regulations, even though they do not go far enough and even though there is much that they omit.

I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who observed in our most recent debate on these matters that the benefit reforms trumpeted as setting the scene for the next 40 years have not survived the test of the first 40 days. The nature of the Government's climbdown when they were forced into retreat was revealing. It was made clear that it was not the decisions that the Government had made or the savage impact of the cuts on young and old alike but the political reaction that the Government regretted. The Secretary of State was refreshingly clear about the Government's intention. He told the House that the cuts were not an error. He chided his own Back-Bench Members—and by implication slightly chided the Chair—for not having taken in over the past three years the Government's clear policy and hard-headed, not to say hard-hearted, decisions on the matter. The Secretary of State was a trifle unfair to Conservative Back Benchers who seemed—the triumph of hope over experience—not only to see party advantage in praising their Government but to believe the guff pressed into their eager hands by the Government Whips' Office.

We observed the spectacle of Conservative Back Benchers asking how the Government could keep talking about reducing dependency and encouraging people back into work when rule changes on work expenses could cost them £20 to £30 a week and why, if the Government were targeting help on those with the greatest need, the most severely disabled were potentially and actually among the greatest losers.

The Opposition had been seeking answers to those questions for the preceding three years—answers which were not forthcoming then but which in effect are forthcoming now as the Government have rushed with unseemly haste to paper over the cracks. I hope that Conservative Members and the media will take careful note when we begin to identify the holes in the limited protection that the Government refused to give until forced to do so but for which they now demand praise.

In essence, the regulations deal with some of the concessions made by the Government on housing benefit cuts. The Government—by design, as the Secretary of State told us—cut the housing benefit case load by 1 million. That is Central Office—speak for removing all entitlement to housing benefit from 1 million people.

Let me remind the House of the kind of people for whom the Government felt help with housing cost was not justified: 70,000 pensioners over the age of 80; 540,000 other pensioners; 10,000 of the sick and disabled; 70,000 lone parents; 180,000 couples with children and 120,000 others. They made up the Government's million-strong caseload.

Conservative Members—for example, last week in our debate on the elderly—tend to focus on those with savings of near or above £6,000, but they are unlikely to be the majority affected either by a total loss of housing benefit or by a severe reduction in the amount of money that they receive. That is clear, because the Government's concession on capital limits brings only 100,000 of that 1 million, most of them pensioners, back into the scheme. Looking at the others who are affected—the sick, the lone parents and the disabled—I seriously doubt that many of them have over £8,000 in the bank.

Of the 7 million or 5 million losers from the Government's housing benefit cuts, the vast majority are losers, not from the capital limit, not because they have substantial savings, but because of the harsh rate of withdrawal of benefit from anyone with an income even slightly above the poverty line. That is the area that is dealt with primarily by the extra-statutory arrangements to which I shall refer.

The changes in procedures for assessing capital are, in general, common to all the regulations. We welcome those changes. We are glad that, after all, the Government will not deprive people of all entitlement to benefit because, for example, they have a home that is on the market but from which the proceeds may not be available for a considerable time. We are relieved that the Government have taken account of the consequences of marital discord or domestic violence, but I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government tried to debar people from claiming benefit in those circumstances, in the first place. After all, it was in the package of changes following the Social Security Act 1986 that, for example, an elderly person going into residential care was deprived of benefit in that way. That is a change brought in by the Government from which they have now retreated. It has never been clear what justification other than savings could underlie such changes. I should be interested—perhaps the word is astonished—to hear the Minister justify that.

Not all the features of the regulations are common. For example, the increased capital limit applies only to housing benefit. Why? I should not have thought that the numbers who would lose income support or family credit because they had capital of over £6,000 would be large. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why, only a few days after the introduction of schemes where cuts and restrictions have been justified by the need for common provision and common rules, a concession has to breach that grand design and is not carried into each of the schemes.

Will the Minister confirm that, because of the assumed tariff income from savings well above the return on capital that most people would expect, there will still be substantial losses of benefit even among those whose entitlement is restored by the regulations? Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the way in which the increased capital limit will apply? The regulations refer to the limit being raised only from 30 May, not from the beginning of April when the cuts began to bite. Is it intended that the period from the beginning of April to 30 May will be covered by the extra-statutory scheme, or not at all? If it is covered, does that mean that that period will be covered only for the limited number of groups to which the extra-statutory scheme, in other ways and in general, applies?

Furthermore, it was suggested to me only today that unless an application under the regulations is made by 31 July—in other words, next week—the higher limit will certainly apply only after 30 May. As I understand it, that is not mentioned in the leaflets or advertisements that have been issued. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether that is so. If it is true that people have to apply before next week to get the full concession, why is the time limit being imposed, why has nobody been told about it, and are there any other time limits that we have not been warned of?

I now refer to other aspects of the transitional protection scheme which, as I have just described, interact to an extent. My concern about the time limits is heightened by the answer that was given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) by the Under-Secretary of State about the progress in dealing with applications. The answer said that inquiry forms are being sent out to local authorities at the rate of 4,500 a day. That does not sound too bad, except that if the Government's extremely misleading propaganda on the generosity of the transitional protection scheme is believed, and 5 million losers apply, it would take three years just to deal with that aspect of the process.

Of course, that is only one part of the chain. Someone must have written to the Glasgow unit, which is now inquiring of the local authority. The local authority must fill in a complicated form and return it to Glasgow, and only after those answers have been assessed will any payment be forthcoming, if at all.

According to the Minister's answer, only a tiny number of cases has been assessed so far, and I note that 50 per cent. of those have been rejected. I know that that is not remotely a statistical sample, but the Opposition believe that substantial numbers of those who apply, confident—as, sadly, because of the propaganda so many of them are—that the Government cannot have meant to deprive them of this money, will be ineligible. In the meantime, some will be running up debts that they will find extremely hard to meet, especially if they believe the much-touted figure of £2.50.

Will the Minister tell us why any of them have to apply? Have the Government approached the local authorities to ask them to identify from their records all who might be eligible—perhaps with the Government covering the cost? If not, why not? I am told that some authorities are undertaking such a task. Of their own volition, they are scrutinising their records to identify everyone who might be eligible. Are the Government taking any steps to deal with that? It would be the height of absurdity if a local authority found out who was eligible in its area and then had to ask people to make a formal application to the local authority so that the normal procedure could be carried out. Has the Department made any changes in its procedure in this regard?

I wonder why people will have to apply. On 13 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was given an interesting answer on the way in which the scheme is administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment, as appropriate. She was told: As far as possible both organisations will identify housing benefit losers likely to qualify for transitional payments and will issue invitations to them to apply. A leaflet will also be made available … for any housing benefit loser who has not been contacted by the end of August and thinks he or she may qualify."—[Official Report, 13 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 257.] Given the general deprivation in Northern Ireland, I should have thought that proportionally more people there received housing benefit than receive it in the United Kingdom. If it is possible for the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland to process the claims, and it need not be done by the individual applicants, why can that not be done in the rest of the United Kingdom?

While we consider the circumstances of those who will be shielded from the full effects of the losses that the Government intended them to suffer, perhaps the House will not forget those for whom even this limited protection is not on offer—those who are not in the target groups, or those whose losses, even at £6, £7 or £10 a week, are not enough for them to qualify for protection, because to the £2.50, which the Government believe to be an acceptable level of loss, must be added their water rates and rent increases, bringing them up to sums such as I have quoted.

At Question Time on 14 June the Minister of State gave me an answer that could be misleading on the future of the scheme. I asked him to confirm that transitional protection of housing benefit—about which the Government have bragged since we made them introduce it, and I have no doubt that the Minister will again praise the Government's wisdom tonight—will be eroded by next year's rent increases. If those increases are as substantial as the Secretary of State for the Environment is demanding under the Housing Bill, many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—will have either no extra money but a large extra bill, or will have their transitional protection wiped out altogether. Will the Minister tell me clearly what will be the impact on the scheme that we are discussing of rent increases in the coming year?

It gives the Opposition no satisfaction to have been right about the pain and suffering that the Government are deliberately inflicting. It gives us even less satisfaction to realise that, at best, the savage cuts that the Government have made are to be phased in, not made immediately. They are not being stopped altogether. When I hear in debate the same justification for the cuts, I cannot but remember the articles in last weekend's papers and previously about how the Treasury is awash with money and how in a year or so the Chancellor may even be able to abolish income tax. I have listened to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers telling us what a rich and successful country we are, but when I listen to the debates on social security and on housing benefits, I wonder what kind of society the Government are trying to build.

As the war pensioners affected by the cuts will testify, some 70,000 of the over-80s are affected by the cuts. Whatever else the Government are trying to build, there is no doubt that this is not a country fit for heroes to live in. which they promised long ago.

10.31 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo)

We are tonight debating a series of proposals to amend the means-related social security benefits, all of which are entirely beneficial to claimants. I had assumed, before the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) started speaking, that we were not debating them tonight so that the Opposition would vote against them because that would have been absurd from their point of view. I suspected, correctly, that we were debating them so that the Opposition could carp again about the social security reforms that we carried out and they could, as ever, oscillitate between, on the one hand, depicting the Government as being uncaring and unhearing, and, on the other, seeking to mock us for the sensible adjustments that we have made because of the difficulties that we recognised.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo

It is rather early in my speech. Why does not the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene in a moment when I will be happy to give way?

As we have heard a lot about the ill effects of the reforms and, since the reforms were brought into effect, the theme has been alleged administrative chaos, I will put the record straight on some of the achievements of the reforms.

The reforms mean extra help for families with children, better work incentives, and a system that is simpler and easier to understand and to administer. The reforms mean that nearly 90 per cent. of those affected have seen a cash gain or no change in their entitlement. The reforms have swept away many of the anomalies of the old system.

Operationally, the conversion exercise for the six million supplementary benefit cases that needed to be converted to income support was completed on time in all but a handful of our local offices. In housing benefit the conversion went well. I take the House back to 23 March when we were debating our regulations that would enable local authorities to make payments on account where they might have difficulty in converting on time. I remind the House that on that occasion the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was a prophet of doom and referred to our reforms as being on a "hurried and impossible timescale". He predicted that a large number of authorities would not implement our scheme on time.

I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Member for Derby, South, or their hon. Friends, of undue reticence, but it has been significant that since 1 April the dog has not barked, because we have not been told by a significant number of local authorities that they have been in any great difficulties, despite reports that, on top of their other commitments, local authorities were being asked to give up time to answer the hon. Gentleman's questionnaire. That attempt to stir up despondency appears to have failed. The local authority associations have acknowledged that most authorities have implemented on time. We acknowledge, very gladly, that local authorities have put in a great deal of work to achieve that, and we give all credit to them, but I fear no credit, as ever, to the Opposition, who have been, as always, making bricks without straw and on this occasion for the purpose of hurling them, rather than for any constructive purpose.

Mr. Nellist

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether my question falls within the definition of the word "carping" that he used. He may be aware that on 12 April I asked the Prime Minister about the specific case of a woman who had a £1.65 increase in her widowed mother's pension, but had lost £13 in free school meals, and who with the housing benefit cuts will now have lost a total of about £15 to £16—yet this is supposed to help families with children. The Prime Minister said in column 18 of Hansard that 5 million people are gaining, 2 million have no change and 1 million have a decrease. Is he aware that in Coventry the council has examined all the cases and 4,000 people have gained and 20,500 have lost? How does Coventry's experience square with the figures that the Prime Minister gave or, indeed, with the complacent attitude shown by the Minister so far? How are my constituents, and those of other "carping" Labour Members, supposed to manage after the cuts that have taken place since April?

Mr. Portillo

I do not recall the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman raised on 12 April, but it sounds as though the person he was talking about was on family credit and had children. If that person suffered a large loss in housing benefit, he or she would be eligible for transitional payments, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will urge his constituent to apply on form RR4.

We have been through the argument about the number of gainers and losers many times. Our figures are based on national representative samples under the family expenditure survey—a data source that has been used by Governments of different parties for many years. Most respectable commentators understand that the family expenditure survey is the most reliable source of data. I am afraid to say that I do not believe that samples conducted by local authorities match up to it in terms of reliability.

Mr. Nellist

Unless I am mistaken, the Minister is talking about a survey that is not done every year. I am talking about an actual analysis of 25,000 individual cases registered in the housing benefit section of the local authority, not a survey. I am talking about 25,000 real people of whom 20,500 have lost and only 4,000 have gained.

Mr. Portillo

I understood the hon. Gentleman the first time. Our difficulty with a number of local surveys is that they have statistical errors in them. The family expenditure survey is a nationally based survey and its reliability has never before been questioned by Opposition Members.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

Will the Minister clarify that response? Of 25,000 people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency examined by the local authority, only 4,000 have gained and more than 20,000 have lost. What is the statistical error there?

Mr. Portillo

I have no means of determining how the figures were calculated or what information was fed in. The hon. Gentleman, who is a student of these matters, will know that the family expenditure survey is conducted nationally and that it has always been regarded as reliable. Opposition Members have never questioned it before.

These amendments to the regulations for needs-related benefits are entirely beneficial to claimants and are a direct response to the issues raised by hon. Members and by outside bodies. They reflect the Government's determination to ease the transition from the old benefit system to the new for the minority of people in vulnerable groups who suffered a cash loss. I should explain the detail of the regulations, and I shall start with the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988, which are perhaps the most important.

The main change is, as the hon. Member for Derby, South said, an increase in the capital limit on housing benefit from £6,000 to £8,000. It brings about 100,000 people back into housing benefit at a cost to the taxpayer of some £35 million. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Lady ask why we have not increased the limit on income support further still. She will know that the limit of £6,000 on income support is double what the limit was on supplementary benefit and that the two are quite different. In one we are talking about a generous increase in the capital limit, and in the other we are talking about introducing a capital limit for the first time. We have tried to decide on the best place for that limit and believe that £8,000 is a reasonable level at which to introduce it.

We moved quickly to help the small group of people whose housing benefit was stopped in April because they had an interest in property, which was not their home, worth more than the capital limit. The provision was intended to ensure that an abuse which had been allowed to exist unchecked in the supplementary benefit scheme was not carried forward into housing benefit. Before April, substantial investments in property were often disregarded for years with little or no effort being made to realise them, while taxpayers' money cushioned the owners.

Mrs. Beckett

That is a rather strange point. The Government have reinstated the original position. They may have slightly tightened up the wording, but have done nothing significant. The Minister is saying that in the past officers of his Department ignored the provisions that allowed them to take account of the possibility of a sale for a reasonable time, but that, in future, they will not ignore that. The Minister is giving us not a justification, but an excuse for a climb-down.

Mr. Portillo

There we go again. The hon. Lady wishes to depict everything in terms of whether it is a climb-down. There was abuse under the old system. The new system makes it clear that the property should be sold within six months, or a longer period if there is genuine difficulty. That is a reasonable position and I am surprised to find the hon. Lady still criticising that point.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)

Does the Minister accept that, under the old housing benefit system, capital was fully taken into account by its income effect? The interest that it generated was included in the income assessment. The Minister has not only introduced a capital limit in housing benefit for the first time, but has subjected that capital sum to the full horrors of the tariff income schedule, previously limited to supplementary benefit, whereby interest is notionally generated from those capital sums at rates far higher than could reasonably have obtained anywhere on the market.

Mr. Portillo

We have introduced a capital limit because we believe that, if one has more than £8,000 in the bank, there is no reason why one should receive help from other taxpayers, who may have no savings at all, to pay one's rent and rates. The calculations that the hon. Gentleman and others do regarding the rates of interest often leave out the fact that the first £3,000 is exempt. It is a tariff income. It is not meant to represent the rate of interest on the market. It is a way of gradually easing people away from housing benefit until the cut-off applies at £8,000.

We recognise that the change introduced in April was too dramatic; it did not protect those people who were experiencing real difficulties in selling their property. That is why we have introduced the changes that I have explained to the hon. Member for Derby, South.

We have also provided in these regulations for a disregard on housing benefit of all the payments made by the Secretary of State from the transitional payments unit. This gives me the opportunity to say something about that, which I know that the hon. Lady will welcome.

My right hon. Friend announced the housing benefit transitional payment arrangements on 27 April. Transitional payments are designed to help those in vulnerable groups who saw too sharp a drop in their housing benefit at the point of change in April. The vast majority of payments will be made to those with incomes above income support levels, as those on income support will continue to receive the maximum help available. Because of the way the new housing benefit system works, those people who have income above their income support level, receiving help with their rents and rates, will still he better off having met their housing costs than they would be on income support, whether they are in work or out of work. The issue is not about reducing their income below income support level but about the sharpness of the reduction in their housing benefit. That is an important distinction.

In many cases the reduction has occurred because a local authority scheme previously paid benefit at a higher level than the national scheme. The transitional payments cover such cases, where that discretion has now gone, to ease the change. But the basic decision to move away from local schemes must be right if we are not to go on paying quite different rates of weekly benefit to people in identical circumstances, depending solely on where they happen to live, week in and week out. I find that hard to defend.

Mr. Cousins

The Minister has now made a diversionary attack on local authorities over their local supplement to the old housing benefit scheme. Will he tell us how much of the total sum of money paid in the last financial year under housing benefit was accounted for by the marginal variations that local authorities were able to build into their local housing benefit schemes? Was it 1 per cent., ½ per cent. or 1½ per cent. of the total spend?

Mr. Portillo

The hon. Gentleman is being absurd. There has been a great fuss by Opposition Members about the abolition of the local schemes. What I said was not an attack on local schemes. If we wish to produce a fair system, we have to recognise that different rates of benefit paid to people in identical circumstances in different places, week in and week out, simply because of where they live, is not a fair system. We have recognised, in making the reductions, that those reductions have proved too sharp for some and we are stepping in with transitional protection.

As for the amounts, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) will recall that the maximum amount was 10 per cent. of the total housing benefit that the local authority spent in that district. Some local authorities will have been closer to that limit than others.

There will be a few cases where people on income support may have seen a drop in their cash entitlement due to detailed changes in the rules governing fuel and service charges and non-dependant deductions. Those people will also be eligible for transitional payments on the same basis as everyone else.

There have been just 11 weeks since April during which my Department has set up an entirely new unit in Glasgow to deal with applications on a national basis. We have found the buildings and equipped them. We have recruited and trained staff. We have developed procedures for calculating and awarding the payments. In conjunction with local authorities, we have devised a simple inquiry form for them to fill in to provide the unit with all the necessary information. We have issued three separate circulars to local authorities keeping them informed of all the changes. We are negotiating a financial settlement for their administrative costs.

By the end of last week, the unit had received nearly 20,000 written inquiries, and nearly 87,000 applications. It has sent out nearly 27,000 inquiries to local authorities, and those are now going out at the rate of 4,500 a day. Naturally, the speed with which those can be translated into payments will depend in part on how quickly the local authorities can process those inquiries.

We have always made it clear that the unit would not be fully operational until July, and with the first payments having been made on 14 July, I think we have more than kept faith with those whom the scheme was designed to help.

We have carried out one national press publicity campaign and another will run for two weeks from 28 July. The advertisements will include a cut-out coupon to enable people to obtain application forms through our freepost service. This is, of course, in addition to the freeline service which has been running since 5 May specifically to provide help and advice about the transitional payments scheme and which has been used extensively by Members of Parliament advisers, local authorities and applicants.

The hon. Lady said that she is concerned about the number of people who may be turned down and that people may apply when they do not qualify. I am amazed by what she said. I should have thought that she would have welcomed the fact that we were advertising widely and that people should apply. If more people apply than turn out to be qualified, that is still a good thing, because it leads us to believe that we are covering the ground.

Some local authorities can sift their applications. If they do so, that will help the process, but due to the systems which they use, not all local authorities have that capability.

Mrs. Beckett

The Minister either has misunderstood me or is hoping to misrepresent what I said. We do not want people to have to apply. We do not understand why they have to apply. They do not have to apply in Northern Ireland, and they do not have to apply in all local authority areas. We do not understand why the Department cannot do something to ensure that the process is more automatic and not dependent on the individual.

We are also concerned that much of the Government's propaganda, far from being designed to encourage people to apply, is designed to encourage people to imagine that they will lose only £2.50. That is extremely misleading and liable to lead people to think that they will get money back when they will not, even if they qualify for transitional protection. That is what concerns us and it ought to concern the Minister.

Mr. Portillo

The hon. Lady has to be realistic. When the measure was announced, it was certainly explained to the House that the £2.50 applied to losses in housing benefit and not to rises in rents that occurred on 1 April.

If the hon. Lady is saying that we should take space in national newspapers to spell out exactly how the scheme will work, with all the caveats included, and she does not believe that that will put off claimants from applying, I am very surprised. The strategy must be to have simple advertisements that encourage people to apply in case they may be eligible, and we shall make the assessment. I am sure that that is the right approach.

The hon. Lady was concerned about transitional protection for those who had capital sums of between £6,000 and £8,000. The transitional protection will again apply to the vulnerable groups. People can continue to apply for help beyond 31 July, but the full amount of transitional protection will not run beyond that point. They will not be disqualified from applying. The transitional protection will run from the beginning of April until 31 July for those who apply after 31 July. The date of 31 July is not a cut-off point for the receipt of applications. I hope that I have made that point clear.

Far from being apologetic about the time that we have taken, I would argue that in a short time the Department has done a tremendous amount to set up the unit. This has been a considerable achievement. I am not apologetic about the fact that we took on this job. The Opposition's approach has been to ask why we did not ask the local authorities to do the job, but as the Opposition also spend their time telling us about the onerous burdens that we have heaped upon housing benefit departments over the past few months, they can hardly object when the Government decide to take on the job of receiving the applications and of making the payments, a task which may go on for a long time.

The final provision in the housing benefit regulations is to introduce a disregard of payments made to compensate for the loss of housing benefit and of certain premiums which are payable to people taking part in employment and training schemes. That mirrors provisions already in income support and family credit and seeks to ensure that there will be a satisfactory incentive for people to join such schemes.

The Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations are also related to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 April. The introduction of income support caused difficulties for certain small groups of former supplementary benefit recipients. The regulations contain the statutory improvements that we have provided. One is to provide the same concessions for income support recipients as in housing benefit for those who are taking steps to sell their properties. The regulations ensure that those claimants who lost benefit at the point of change get the transitional protection to which they would otherwise have been entitled. In addition, we have enhanced the transitional protection rules so that certain people temporarily away from home when income support was introduced can now get the transitional protection that they would have got but for their absence.

The Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations deal only with the introduction of the new disregards of certain types of property in calculating a claimant's capital. The provisions are the same as those in the housing benefit and income support amending regulations and, again, are entirely beneficial.

I spent some time on the detail of the regulations because I wanted to demonstrate that everything that we are doing is of benefit to claimants. The Opposition's attempts to portray the benefit changes in April as cuts have failed. We shall be spending more this year than if the old system had continued. The Opposition's claims that the Government would prove stubborn and unwilling to contemplate change have been shown to be a myth. We took steps within a few days of the changes, for example, to help battered wives leaving home, and on 27 April we announced a number of changes, in particular to introduce transitional protection for certain housing benefit claimants.

Three months after the reforms, I believe that the system is settling down well. Our rapid response to problems in the new system has dealt with most of the serious problems. We are certainly prepared to watch carefully for any future signs of practical problems and to act where necessary.

Mr. Nellist

The Minister's nose is growing.

Mr. Portillo

The hon. Gentleman may miss something if he does not keep quiet.

I have today announced another small change, but one of importance to those affected, in the treatment of charitable payments to people receiving housing benefit or income support. We intend that such payments should, in due course, be treated as adding to a person's capital, but not as constituting income, in the assessment of benefit. I believe that that will be welcome to the House.

It is in that spirit, assuring the House of the Government's willingness to examine carefully the results of all the recent changes, that I commend the statutory instruments to the House. I very much hope that the House will not divide when all that is at stake is of benefit to claimants.

10.53 pm

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

This is yet another late-night debate on housing benefit changes. It is appropriate that the phrase "transitional protection" should have been used so much by the Minister. Housing benefit—whatever its guise under successive changes by the Government—is in constant transition. The Government appear to be for ever changing the system and going from one transitional period to another, but for many years for claimants and those dependent on the system there has been difficulty, complexity and abject misery.

The Minister began by welcoming the fact that a Division seemed unlikely, and said that it would have been absurd for the Opposition to seek one. Let me put to him the linguistic logic of his proposition. If it would have been absurd for us to divide on these measures, how absurd was it that the measures were necessary, given the Government's original position? It is, to say the least, slightly disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that Opposition Members and, I suspect, some of his hon. Friends—I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle)—may not be exactly gushing in their enthusiasm. I refer not to the concessions announced tonight but to the underlying reality of the scheme, which will persist despite those concessions. That is at the heart of the matter, and it will be interesting to hear the views of Conservative Back Benchers.

The Minister says that we should welcome the crumbs that are being thrown, and to an extent we do. The fact remains, however, that although the capital limit has risen from £6,000 to £8,000 it will still catch many people. Moreover, many of us find the method by which the capital limit has been introduced offensive and unacceptable.

I remind the Minister of our recent debate on pensioners, when I moved the motion to which he replied. Before he tries to submerge himself completely beneath the DHSS halo that he has been wearing tonight, let me say that any Government movement on the capital limit came about only because of the damage that many Conservative Back Benchers thought was being done to their people. We often hear the phrase "not one of us" in connection with the Government, but the simple fact is that many Conservative Back Benchers realised that the capital limit introduced in the original scheme would hit hitherto true-blue loyal Tory voters. That was the source of the head of steam for change, and that is why the Government moved with such alacrity. I am pleased that they did move, but I emphasise the motive behind the movement. It was self-interest related to votes in Tory Back Benchers' constituencies, rather than a genuine desire to ease the plight of those affected by the change.

I do not know how the Minister, when he talked about the transitional payments unit in Glasgow, could say what he did with a straight face—and he has a straighter face than most at the DHSS nowadays. How could he say that it was an outstanding example of the Department's achievement? The Department has bought the computers and found the furniture. No doubt it has advertised in the press for cleaners to make sure that nothing is left lying on the floor at night. The staff—said the Minister, with a straight face—have been trained to run the unit. I do not know which DHSS staff he has been talking to. The permanent staff in the DHSS regional offices do not feel that they are yet au fait with the changes. Which staff have been trained? The SAS of the DHSS must have been drafted in.

The Minister knows as well as the rest of us that the staff have been bewailing the changes, in many instances as loudly as the claimants who have lost from them. When he is so laudatory about the transitional payments unit, he should listen to what I can tell him from a constituency surgery of a week ago. Many of my constituents are pensioners living in Scottish Special Housing Association accommodation, and they do not know what is going to happen. They have filled up forms and sent them off to the office in Glasgow. The local citizens advice bureau cannot tell them what is going to happen; nor can the local authority, because it is not sure.

The Minister may talk about his advertising campaign in the newspapers, but for many of the most vulnerable and anxious—pensioners who have never been in debt in their lives and hate the prospect—the issue has not been clarified so far. They are not sure what the future will hold.

I particularly underscore the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the £2.50 cushion, or limit, refers only to a loss of housing benefit; it does not cover the broad sweep of loss. The fact remains that many of the people who think, albeit in back-dated fashion, that they will now receive a cushion are still under the erroneous impression that it will cover loss as a result of the totality of the changes and not the narrowly drawn sphere to which the Minister has referred.

I do not intend to say any more except that any change is welcome, but the Minister should not complain too much that the Opposition remain critical. We were critical throughout the transition of the original legislation in the previous Parliament. Warnings came from everybody from the Social Security Advisory Committee to pressure groups throughout the land who had commented on the original proposals. Therefore, to say that we are wrong in continuing to criticise is unfounded.

This is not a matter for division, but the basic anomalies, flaws and injustices in the system remain and the Minister bears a responsibility in replying to that reality later.

11.1 pm

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

I heard what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said he expected of me if I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that I shall not disappoint him, because, although we have heard some criticism from Opposition Benches, the House will recall that I was, and, indeed remain to some extent, a critic of the changes. I was not a critic who suddenly discovered the impact of the changes in 1988, but, if I may partially in self-justification remind the House, one who has been critical in anticipation of the measure over the past two or three years, indeed ever since the Fowler review.

In particular, the House will recall that I was at the forefront of the campaign just a few short weeks ago which aimed to increase the £6,000 capital disregard. It would be churlish if I did not start by saying that I am prepared to welcome the increase that is embodied in one of the sets of amendments on the Order Paper. That was a successful campaign and Conservative Back Benchers can claim credit for having persuaded the Government that the proposed £6,000 capital limit was too low.

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye seemed to think that he had discovered some great truth when he said that part of the reason why some of us took that line was because we were fearful that the proposal would affect some of our traditional supporters. In so far as this is a time for confession, let me be frank and say that the hon. Gentleman is right. I perceived that it would have an impact on some of the people on whom I have relied for election after election. I have no apology to make to the House for that.

Mr. Kennedy

I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for the candid nature of his comments. My criticism is levelled not at him or indeed his colleagues on the Back Benches, but at the Minister who sought to deny that very point when I raised it in a debate on pensioners in the House last week. He said that nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. McCrindle

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps we could find common ground not only across the Floor but between the Conservative Back and Front Benches if I say that, although that was undoubtedly in my mind, and will remain in my mind, so, too, was the recollection that for years, ever since I became a Member of the House, I have been extolling the virtues of thrift. I have been telling people that self-reliance was something to which we should all aspire. I have long taken the view that if one can avoid the necessity of relying on state assistance, that is something to be proud of. Although it cannot possibly be the lot of everybody in this country to be able to do so, those who have been able to accumulate a nest egg are to be congratulated.

I took the view that to penalise thrift, which is what the earlier low limit suggested, was the wrong way to go about things. I repeat that I have been saying that for a long period and not just for a short time. Therefore, it was agreeable to find that after a few years of not being listened to quite as acutely as I would wish, there was a sudden upsurge of support.

Although in the announcement at the end of April we moved to a capital cut-off limit of £8,000 rather than £6,000, which I welcome, I do not find that limit supremely generous. When the announcement was finally made by the Secretary of State, I pressed for a figure of £10,000. Even now I do not consider that £10,000 is a vast sum in 1988. Although this is not a subject on which we can achieve a result tonight, I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that even if we were to think only in terms of a couple, raising the figure to £10,000 at some time in the future would not be taking it too far. I have never understood why a single person and a married couple are allocated the same figure, which, I am pleased to say, has now been increased to £8,000. I leave that thought with the Minister for when the scheme is next reviewed, and assure him that I shall be pressing for it to be so reviewed as time goes by.

Having congratulated the Government on moving in that direction, I should like to focus on a point which has been made by several Opposition Members and was touched on by the Minister. In addition to the announcement that the capital cut-off was being increased from £6,000 to £8,000, the impression was given—I shall not put it any higher—that as a result of the changes no one would be worse off by more than £2.50 per week. I understand all the qualifications that we can now read into that statement and hear what the Minister says in explanation, but although I understood what was being said, I doubt whether it was widely understood outside the House.

In addition to the £2.50 reduction which the Government are prepared to regard as acceptable, we must remember that there is the 20 per cent. contribution to rates, the water rates and, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned in other cases, the question of rent. That seems to have changed the many people whom the Government could rightly claim as gainers into losers. The Government must take that on board.

Although we cannot achieve any change tonight, the Government would be extremely unwise to go on accepting that that is the best way to achieve one of their objectives, which is to interest the people of this country in the expenditure of local authorities. I am at one with the Minister in wishing to persuade people to pay far more attention to local government expenditure than many of them have done in the past. However, I am simply not persuaded that this is the best or the only way in which that can be achieved.

I represent an area of high rateable values and comparatively low rates in the pound and the assumption of £1.30 per week on rates comes nowhere near to being adequate to cover the problems faced by many people in my constituency. Other hon. Members may be more fortunate than I, and may not have as many people coming to their surgeries at weekends to point out that they are considerably more than £2.50 worse off per week, notwithstanding these changes, simply because of high rateable values, the contribution of 20 per cent. and the water rates which, put together, can be a substantial imposition.

I leave this thought with the Minister. Although I accept that we cannot change the provisions tonight. this seems an appropriate moment to say, as I have been doing at successive Question Times ever since 1 April and will continue to do, this is not a matter which will go away. It is not a question of allowing the system to settle down and assuming that, as a result, we shall stop receiving complaints. We are faced with middle-class hardship and that is something which a Conservative Government should not readily overlook.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)

I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he accept that we face exactly the same problems in the borough of Waltham Forest where we have low rateable values but a high rate in the pound?

Mr. McCrindle

That is all the more reason for our combined representations to be heard carefully by the Minister. We could then persuade my hon. Friend that the system on which the Government have so far insisted is riot the only one and certainly not the best one. We should be performing a useful service if we persuaded the Minister to go back to his Department to make sure that a investigation is undertaken to see whether a better system can be found.

In the past few weeks I have been struck by the number of people who have come to my surgeries to tell me that they are in difficult circumstances because of their income. It is extremely difficult to challenge that. On inquiry, however, one discovers that they have a mortgage-free property—some of those properties are valued at more than £100,000. It makes no sense that such people are income poor but capital rich and yet are unable to release that capital, which is tied up in the brick and mortar.

I was extremely disappointed that, in Committee on the Finance Bill, an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) did not find favour with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appreciate that this is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that he will understand that the pressures that we are putting on him could be substantially relieved if an easier way could be found to tap the substantial capital resource held by many elderly people.

It cannot be right for people with properties valued in excess of £100,000 to be living a life of penury when judged on their weekly income. I hope that my speech will be heard in the appropriate quarters. Given that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West was unacceptable, I hope that the Chancellor will see it as his responsibility to bring in a system to unlock such capital.

I realise that my speech has ranged far and wide and I appreciate that I have not made myself unduly popular with the Minister. I have lived with that problem for some years, but I am bound to say that I have not experienced it with this Minister.

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the capital cut-off is still not generous and that the figure of £2.50 must be reconsidered. A better way must be found of interesting people in the expenditure of their local authorities. We must also find a way to unlock capital so that some pleasure is brought to the lives of people who presently sometimes face financial difficulties.

11.13 pm

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)

I hope that the Minister will understand the difference between Labour party criticism of the housing benefit scheme that the Government are attempting to operate—under which there are 5 million losers—and our response to these meagre proposals that the Government have been forced to introduce and for which everyone in the Chamber is claiming credit. It will not escape hon. Members' notice that, from whichever side the pressure came, the Government were forced to make amendments to their housing benefit scheme because it was inoperable in certain areas.

It is interesting that when the Secretary of State announced the proposals he told us: It is a simpler system that people can understand."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 356.] He went on to say of the capital disregard, in column 359: The increase will bring considerable extra help … we shall quickly consult local authorities to find out the most effective way of introducing the scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary went on to congratulate himself and the Department on the basis that, seen through the rose-tinted glasses worn by people living and working in Whitehall, the conversion had gone well. He congratulated himself on setting up, equipping, recruiting and training a new department in Glasgow.

Exactly what consultations were held with local authorities about these changes? What were the local authority responses to the proposals? What notice did the Government take of those responses? Was it taken in double quick time? How did the responses affect the Government's decision to set up the unit in Glasgow? When housing authorities in my part of the world—Bristol—write directly to Members who represent their districts, all those Members, bar myself, are Conservative. The points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) about Coventry are far more accurate because they are statements of fact about numbers of claimants, not samples. If the Minister cannot understand the difference between a survey and a specific statement about population, the Opposition cannot be held responsible for that, although we seem to be blamed for just about everything else.

I want to tell the Minister some of the comments made by Bristol city housing committee. He will not be surprised to learn that that committee is not made up entirely of Labour members. The views I shall pass on are those of all members of the committee. They say this about the new capital limit: Whilst the rise in the capital limit from £6,000 to £8,000 means that some individuals will now qualify for Housing Benefit, a great number of claimants have had their hopes raised only to find that the calculation of their notional income means that they still fail to qualify for Housing Benefit. The Government deliberately set out in April, when they were under pressure, to mislead people about the benefits they would derive from the changes. We pointed that out at the time and said that not much money was being put in. By the Government's own admission, only 100,000 people were expected to benefit from the change. People were misled.

The Committee went on to state: Identification of people who will now qualify is also placing a considerable administrative burden on staff of the local authority particularly as we have lost touch with many of the householders who in the intervening period believed that they would not qualify.

The committee also stressed the considerable disappointment of many groups of people about the transitional payments. Regardless of what the Minister says about the nuances of debate in the House and the clarity, or otherwise, of the statement, people were led to believe that they would be protected if their loss was greater than £2.50 a week.

The Government did not make any statements correcting reports that appeared in the press or attempt to make it clear that what was said to be the case was not the case. Indeed, their explanations revealed the scheme to be more, rather than less, complicated.

For those who qualify, the procedure by which claims must be made to the unit in Glasgow will result in confusion, and in many cases people will fail to apply. The Bristol housing committee says: Claimants in Bristol are particularly disadvantaged because claim forms to date have been in very short supply. We have 40,000 council housing units in Bristol, well over half the occupants of which are in receipt of housing benefit and we do not have sufficient forms to enable people to make claims. The committee understands that the deadline for making claims is the end of July.

It is also claimed that national publicity about the availability of payments has been limited. This claim is made by the local housing committee, which has been monitoring the publicity in its efforts to ensure that those entitled to claim know about and claim their entitlement. The committee goes on: National publicity about the availability of these payments has been very limited and consequently this authority will incur expense by encouraging take-up of entitlement to benefit. The administration of these payments will place a strain on the local authority's resources because once a questionnaire has been designed, remembering that a great deal of information must be supplied by the local authority, detailed information about housing benefit entitlement before and after April will have to be provided to the unit in Scotland. Claimants will, as a consequence, face delay in receiving these payments and the position whereby a claimant receives payments from two sources of what is effectively the same benefit is confusing, to say the least. In conclusion, the view expressed by this committee is that while any changes to the housing benefit scheme which result in increased incomes for Bristol's poorer households are welcomed, these particular changes are limited in their effect, confusing to claimants and difficult and costly for the City Council to administer. The Government have made a mess of the housing benefit scheme. We were told they were doing an ongoing review which was the culmination of a number of years' work and that it would result in a simpler, targeted and fairer system, which would allow everyone to know where they stood. The Government have achieved none of those criteria. We shall continue to argue that the scheme is inadequate and to press the Government to make the necessary changes.

Will local authorities be provided with an expenditure disregard or with a grant to cover the administrative costs resulting directly from the Government's bungling of the scheme?

11.25 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

I shall not speak for long because many of the issues that I wished to raise have already been taken up.

The Minister has no right to present the changes that are before us as an act of great generosity. It is much akin to a mugger throwing the small change to his victim after the crime has been committed.

I am depressed by the number of constituents who have had cause to contact me because of cuts in their housing benefit. Many of them have been in tears when they have done so. Many have been severely disturbed by the amount of money that they have lost as a result of the benefit changes.

I accept that some Conservative Members have argued against the Government's actions. It is true that there was Conservative Back-Bench pressure, but much of it was motivated by fear of the consequences in their constituencies of what the Government were doing, not by principle. They were fearful as a consequence of the political campaign that was mounted by Labour Members. We shall continue to campaign against the thrust of the benefit changes and draw attention to the way in which they affect recipients.

I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be an increased awareness campaign to inform the public of the availability of form RR4 and the fact that they can claim transitional payments. Even with the efforts that have been made, constituents have come to me who have not been aware of the existence of the forms. Many of them are already confused and fearful. It is fair to say that when these people have contacted the local authorities about the moneys that they have lost by not claiming, the authorities have drawn the matter to the attention of those who are concerned. This has led to people obtaining a form and making an application. Many of those who have come to me have said that they should have been made much more aware of the forms initially. They would then have claimed the transitional payments. I hope that that is taken on board and that campaigns are embarked on to try to persuade as many people as possible to claim.

We should not have to be encouraging the public to make claims for transitional payments. We should have a system of housing benefit that is fair and meets needs in a practical and reasonable way. The changes that the Government propose will fail to achieve that. The Government can claim no credit for presenting these changes, which have been wrung out of them as a result of the campaign which was organised to fight against what they were doing.

I hope that in future the Government will take account of the suffering of those on incomes of about £40 a week who have lost as much as £8 a week in housing benefit under the changes that the Government have introduced. It is intolerable that people on such income levels should suffer percentage cuts of that sort. In some instances there are middle-class victims in my constituency. Many of those who have attended my surgery are from the more comfortable parts of town. These people have worked hard all their lives and receive small pensions. There are widows on pensions. It is the small pensions that are causing the problem, which is a cut in housing benefit. Many of these people have been Government supporters in the past, and they now find themselves victims of the Government's attack on those who are among the weakest and the most vulnerable. The Government must stand condemned for the way in which they have inflicted misery and cuts on them.

11.29 pm

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West)

It used to be the watchword about insurance policies that we should always study the small print. The Government have moved their policy on national insurance towards personal, if not private, insurance. That means that the watchword about insurance policies is becoming even more appropriate.

At Christmas, there was a great row in the National Health Service. There were headlines in the newspapers and a statement from the Government Dispatch Box. We were told that the nurses would be paid in full. We find months later that we must read the small print, where we find that that assurance was false. Concessions were forced on the Government following their housing benefit changes. They seem to be dying the death of a thousand qualifications as it becomes increasingly difficult for recipients to take up the transitional payments. It makes a mockery of "transition" when the transition period is moving so fast that no one has been able to keep up with it to make a claim. If the July deadline is adhered to, many will miss out entirely.

I ask the Minister to look again at the impact of the housing benefit changes on pensioners. That point is not often understood among Conservative Members.

Sometimes they have referred to the effect on pensioners of the state earnings-related penson scheme changes in the Social Security Act 1986, when all of us know that those proposals do not affect pensioners. The big proposals in that Act that affected pensioners were the changes in housing benefits. It was disgraceful when Conservative Members, in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, on which I served, referred to pensions as handouts when pensioners have worked all their lives and contributed to national insurance.

Many pensioners have turned up at my advice surgeries in Leeds, West who are unable to understand why their income has been reduced and who repeat phrases such as, "We worked all our lives. We served this country in the war. What have we done wrong to be penalised?" I urge the Minister to look again at the impact of housing benefit reductions on pensioners.

I detect a sickening complacency on the Government Benches. We have had the Prime Minister and more recently the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referring to the fact that all—I underline the word "all"—are participating in the increased prosperity and wealth of Britain. We know that not to be true. All are not doing so. Some are losing out and the Government must face up to that fact and do something about it, because the tone that is coming across from Conservative Benches is that if everyone is not participating in that wealth, somehow it is the people's fault that they are not. Surely pensioners cannot be blamed for their fate and for the reduction in their income as a result of the housing benefit changes.

I quietly ask the Minister to look again at the matter and support those people, particularly pensioners, who have had low incomes reduced. I appeal to him to give practical support at the Department of Health and Social Security, whether it is through the unit in Scotland, or through the local authorities, to alleviate the situation of pensioners now because the tone of the Minister's introductory remarks struck me as complacent. He referred to the family expenditure surveys and the statistics, but I refer him to one remark that was made to me recently about arithmetic. A pensioner said to me, "Those of us who pay the price can do the arithmetic." I urge the Government to do the arithmetic. Pensioners know when they do not have sufficient to buy food and fuel as a result of the changes in housing benefit. Will the Government do the arithmetic and make sure that pensioners do not have to pay for the cuts in benefit, but have the right to a decent income that they can live on, so that they can enjoy a healthy and, we hope, happy retirement?

11.37 pm

Mr. Portillo

With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.

On the final point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), if he is asking whether we are willing to monitor the changes in future, the answer is that we are. We have given that undertaking several times. I said in my introductory remarks that the 31 July date is not a deadline for applications. It is a deadline for transitional protection, which can be paid only up to that date, but applications will be welcome beyond that time.

Mrs. Beckett

Will the Minister clarify one matter? I think that I understood him correctly the first time, but it is nice to get it crystal clear. From what he said, do I understand that of those who claim for the increase in the capital limit, only those in the target groups for transitional protection will be entitled to that protection until 30 May and those who are not in the target groups will be entitled to it for claims only after 30 May? Whenever the claim is received, that is the only date from which it will be paid. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Mr. Portillo

It is my turn not to understand the question. The vulnerable groups will be covered by the transitional protection. Transitional protection will be payable for those who have lost housing benefit up to 31 July, no matter when they apply. On the capital limit change, the transitional period is up to only 30 May anyway because since 30 May a different capital limit has applied. There we are talking about people being compensated between 1 April and 30 May. I hope that that has clarified the matter for the hon. Lady, but if not I am more than happy to pursue it with her outside the Chamber.

I am always willing to listen to criticism from hon. Members, but I resent the suggestion of a lack of candour. I draw the attention of the House to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on 27 April. When referring to the scheme for compensating housing benefit losses above £2.50, the first thing that he said was: We do not think it right to compensate for those increases in rents introduced to coincide with the new housing benefit scheme, nor increases in rates."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 360.] He could not have made that clearer, and it was further made clear—certainly in the correspondence that I have had with hon. Members—that that is how the system will apply.

The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) could do better than read a brief from the Bristol city housing committee. There was a basic confusion in that brief. It seemed to be urging me to use the local authorities for the transitional scheme and yet to be bemoaning the fact that extra work was being heaped on local authorities by the fact that we were requesting information from them. I met the local authorities on 27 April, and we have been in constant consultation about the design of the inquiry form and other matters. I cannot accept her criticism that the procedure is complicated. All that the claimant need do is to fill in form RR4, which is very simple. It requests information such as the name and address and asks for a signature on the back. The entire form is confined to two sides, and the second side is only for the signature. I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion that the forms are not available, because 8.5 million have been printed and 5 million issued. All orders for new batches of forms are being met within two days. We are discussing with the local authorities how we should meet the administrative costs.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) joined me in wishing to see the maximum take-up. That puts him on my side in wishing to have a simple advertising campaign that encourages people to come forward.

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the genuine anxiety and confusion of elderly people. I am at one with him in wishing to end all that. But it does not help for him to cast aspersions on the training or competence of the staff at Glasgow. I wish to encourage applications and to ensure that advisers are fully informed of how the scheme works. We have issued detailed guidance to the local authorities. We shall place that guidance in the Library. We have issued guidance specifically for advisers. There will be a freeline service that members of the public can ring, and there is a headquarters telephone service for advisers to ring. The information is certainly available.

I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), although it is always a pleasure to debate matters with him. He applauds people having put aside a nest egg and not being in need of benefit. He wishes to encourage thrift. But we are talking about people who have amassed capital yet are still receiving benefit from the taxpayer. The question is where one applies the cut-off. On that, he and I will not agree exactly, but I am pleased that he at least believes that there should be a cut-off, although he believes that the figure should be different. He will realise that no figure is for ever, and he will have another opportunity to make his point.

My hon. Friend said that the £2.50 was only a small part of what people will be asked to pay because, in addition, we must consider the 20 per cent. of rates. Many people who are receiving transitional protection for housing benefit and are living above the income support level may already have been paying 20 per cent. of rates, and we do not require them to pay the 20 per cent. of rates on top of what they were paying previously. Where in a local authority the rates are unusually high, for whatever reason, the £1.30 will not cover 20 per cent. of rates. But the 80 per cent. which is rebated will be of a higher value than it would be in another area. Therefore, the taxpayer who subsidises housing benefit and who is making good the 80 per cent. that the claimant is not paying is paying a higher rate of benefit to those people than would be the case in an area where the rates were lower.

The regulations bring extra benefit to people who might otherwise find the changes made in April too abrupt. They provide to the woman leaving her home in distress, perhaps under threat of violence, time to order her affairs and to dispose of her interest in the home without being excluded from benefit meanwhile. Similarly, the old person entering a residential home will have time to sell the home without its capital value excluding that person from benefit. They give statutory effect to the raising of the capital ceiling for housing benefit to £8,000, thus re-entitling a large number of people to help with housing costs. They enable us to disregard transitional payments from the Glasgow unit and training premia from the training schemes.

I trust that all those provisions are welcome to both sides of the House, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion to revoke the regulations.

Question put and negatived.