HL Deb 19 January 1988 vol 492 cc144-56

7.40 p.m.

The Countess of Mar rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1987 No. 1969) be annulled.

The noble Countess said: I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I will use plain language to explain my concern about the drafting of these regulations. I will begin with a simple drafting error on page 12. In Regulation 14(3) on the sixth line and Regulation 14(4) also on the sixth line the word "it" is printed instead of the word "if". Since amending regulations may be necessary to correct the error, is the Minister prepared to take this opportunity to clarify the drafting in other regulations, in particular, 15(1)?

I believe that the most important role of your Lordships' House is to ensure that the meaning of any legislation which passes us is clear. Regulation 2(1) states: In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires". That means that the interpretation of "transitional addition" as an amount of income support applies only within the transitional regulations. As a result, former beneficiaries under supplementary benefit who will not qualify for income support under the main regulation but who will qualify for transitional addition will be deprived of free prescriptions, legal aid, dental care, vouchers for spectacles and other benefits to which they are now entitled. Is it really the Government's intention so to deprive this group? If not, what is their intention?

I understand that the Government mean to exclude those currently receiving housing benefit supplement from transitional addition. If this is so, the definitions of a "former housing benefit recipient" and a "former beneficiary" as separate interpretations may not be adequate to ensure their exclusion. The definition of a former beneficiary includes all those receiving supplementary benefit, including housing benefit supplement. The two definitions fit into neither, special provisions override general ones", nor to state one thing is to exclude another". principles. The Minister should have another look at these.

I now move to the general aspect. The Government have frequently stated that it is their intention that no beneficiary will be worse off after the change to income support. If they mean this, it seems to me that the rate of benefit paid at the changeover to income support is critical. The two weeks allowed for a claimant's normal situation to be assessed are not enough. There are a number of circumstances where a claimant's position could be abnormal during these two weeks; for example, if he is in hospital. It is a matter of chance whether he will be given a fair allocation of transitional addition. It would be sensible to extend the assessment period to, say, 13 weeks and also to include in the regulations a definition of what is a claimant's normal situation. We would then be sure that those who most need help receive it.

There is a special linking rule for those who go into respite care while they are receiving special transitional addition, but there is no protection for those receiving the basic transitional addition. The Minister for Social Security in another place gave a clear commitment on Central Television's "Link" programme on 1st November 1987 that a period in respite care would not lead to a loss of transitional addition. The Minister must surely agree that public promises given by government Ministers must be made law.

I will now deal with the claimant who needs £10 or more a week to meet the reasonable cost of private domestic help and who receives a domestic assistance addition. Where he is not entitled to a severe disability premium the effect of Regulations 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5) will lead to reduced transitional additions. To take your Lordships through the complexity of this calculation I really need a blackboard and chalk so I hope you will bear with me. For example, a claimant receiving a domestic assistance addition of £18 a week, with no severe disability premium and with a total benefit income in benefit week one of £75.10 and in benefit week two of £46.45, would receive a transitional addition of £10.65. He is also entitled to a special transitional addition as he is receiving domestic assistance addition.

In Regulation 10(5) the special transitional allowance is £6.75, the difference between £18 and the severe disability premium of £24.75. After 11th April 1988 the claimant will lose £11.25 a week. If such people are not to be penalised, the drafting of Regulation 15(1) should read, from the middle of the fifth line: He shall be entitled to a special transitional addition of an amount equal to the difference between his domestic assistance addition and his severe disability premium if any is applicable". In a debate on the Social Security Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said about the severely disabled: We have all along made it clear that such people would not face a cash loss at the time of the change to income support".—[Official Report, 23/6/86; col. 21.] This assurance has not been carried into these regulations and it seems that those in receipt of a high rate of domestic assistance addition are least protected.

Living near to me is a tetraplegic man who, with the assistance of two community service volunteers, copes very well with his disability. Without them, he would be unable to live in the community. CSVs determine what volunteers are paid, allowing for their food, clothing and personal expenditure. In the past the rate has been reviewed annually and any increase has been accepted by the DHSS. As expenses will certainly increase over the years, may I ask the Minister whether he will include a mechanism where transitional allowances will be uprated to reflect increases in the cost of volunteers on an actual basis rather than some other as yet undetermined formula such as RPI, where domestic care is being provided by such organisations as community service volunteers or independent living schemes? Is he also prepared to provide a means by which special transitional addition could be increased if domestic assistance costs increase; for example, if the claimant's health deteriorates and his need for domestic assistance is greater?

Another family living nearby has an extremely complex array of social security benefits. The father, the claimant, suffers from Crohn's disease. He has had most of his gut removed and is restricted to an expensive high protein, low roughage diet. He also receives attendance allowance, a laundry addition and a mobility allowance. His son, aged 15, suffers from cystic fibrosis and must have a high protein, low fat, low roughage diet. An attendance allowance is paid for him. Their total diet addition, paid on an actual cost basis, is about £75 a week. The son will be 16 after 11th April 1988 and will be leaving school in July. He will not be fit for full-time employment and he has been advised by his careers officer to apply for benefits in his own right in September. As a result, the family will lose his transitional addition, despite the fact that its circumstances will be unchanged.

There is a need for a means of transferring from dependant to non-dependant status. Similarly, should the father cease to be able to be the claimant, there is no provision for transfer of transitional addition to the mother where the child is a dependant.

I fully appreciate the need for this statutory instrument but it must be made clear. Although I have not covered all the points, I hope later speakers will do so. The drafting falls well below the standard essential if the promises given by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and other government Ministers are to be put into effect. We would also be failing in our constitutional duty if we let it pass without revision.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1987 No. 1969) be annulled.—(The Countess of Mar.)

7.48 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for putting down this Motion, which I believe provides the only opportunity in either House to discuss these extremely important regulations. As she said, there are a number of detailed points which have to be made on these regulations, which are of their nature extremely complex.

However, I should first like to ask the Minister a question on a general point. Is he able to tell the House how much the Government saved by not uprating certain benefits in line with an inflation rate of 3.2 per cent? This uprating was not carried out to take effect in April 1988. Is it possible to give the House an indication of the savings that resulted from doing that so that all those receiving income support will be 3.2 per cent. worse off than they otherwise would have been?

On a second general point on the overall cost of the transitional protection, Mr. John Moore, the Secretary of State for Social Services, speaking in the other place on 27th October 1987 said that the cost of transitional protection is £200 million. Presumably without that £200 million those receiving income support would have seen a reduction in their benefits of that amount. In other words, the £200 million represents what would be the underlying reduction in value in income support if there were no transitional protection. I should like the Minister to comment on that point.

I now move to a more detailed consideration of the regulations. I am sure that the Minister knows that there is considerable concern, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, among the disabled and their organisations regarding the effect of the changes commencing in April 1988 on their existing rights, under current regulations, to free prescriptions, dental treatment, vouchers for glasses and the like. May I ask the Minister whether those rights are fully protected under the new regulations or are amendments required in other regulations to protect the existing rights? If amendments are required will the Government undertake to introduce the necessary amendments to make sure that the existing rights are protected?

The matter of respite care was referred to by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and as she said, the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled referred to this in a television programme. To assist the noble Lord the Minister, I shall quote from a transcript of that programme. But on respite care there's no question of anybody losing their entitlement to transitional protection as a result of taking advantage of respite care. That's an absolute clear assurance that I can give today". He continued: But I know there has been some worry about respite care and I think it is very important to set people's fears at rest on that particular count". Those are the quotations from the transcript of the programme. I ask the Minister to confirm that there are no circumstances in which anyone receiving transitional protection and entering respite care will risk any reduction in the level of transitional protection if the spell in respite care is the only change in the circumstances of the claimant.

On reading the regulations, everything seems to depend upon the claimant's total income in just two crucial weeks—the last week on supplementary benefit and the first week of income support—the weeks of 4th and 11th April of this year. Would it not have been much fairer, as the noble Countess said, to relate the level of transitional protection to the claimant's normal income from benefits? What if there is some temporary change in circumstances affecting the claimant in the crucial two weeks which control the level of transitional protection? The noble Countess referred to a spell in hospital. What is the effect on the level of transitional protection if someone is in respite care for the crucial two weeks? I repeat that it would surely have been much fairer to base the level of transitional protection on the normal income of a claimant, however defined, from benefits before and after the changeover of the system.

There are many other detailed points where the regulations are, to say the least, obscure. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has referred to a number of them. Besides these important points of detail, there is the central point that the Government have refused to undertake to uprate the levels of benefit under transitional protection in line with inflation. As it stands at the moment there are some claimants who may have to wait for 10 to 15 years for income support to catch up with their transitionally protected level of benefit. In addition, any change in their circumstances in that time could result in a substantial reduction in their income.

We are still awaiting the details of the long-promised scheme to assist those who become newly disabled after April 1988. As the regulations are now, they stand to receive a much reduced level of benefit compared with those who were disabled before April 1988.

There is much distress, concern and worry throughout the whole of the disabled community regarding the effects of the new Act. I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister can allay at least some of those fears, and particularly those which arise from the complexity of these regulations.

7.55 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to make a brief general comment on the Motion so ably and comprehensively moved by the noble Countess. I join in the thanks to her which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss these regulations.

My principal concern is with Part II of the regulations—provision of transitional protection. We know that the object of transitional protection is to ensure that there is no reduction in the actual cash which a claimant is receiving on income support as compared with supplementary benefit. If the new entitlement is lower than the old, then the new under these regulations is made up to the level of the old by a transitional addition. I have two concerns about that. The first is the very considerable number of people who will need transitional protection. The second is the fact referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the transitional protection is not index-linked so that the claimant who receives transitional protection is gradually lowered to the new, real value which will immediately affect new claimants.

On December 9th when the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was answering a Question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I asked a supplementary question concerning the number of pensioners who will receive transitional protection. I asked whether it was not a fact that they would all suffer a loss in real value. The noble Earl indicated that he would write to me on those two points and he did so on 14th December. I am very grateful to him for writing to me. I am rather puzzled by his reply and I should like to read the second paragraph of the letter. It states: We estimate that around 650,000 pensioners will receive a normal transitional addition". The House will see from that what I meant when I spoke about the very large numbers of people who are going to require transitional protection. The letter continues: which will remain in payment until either they lose entitlement to benefit or until their rate of income support increases to overtake their former level of benefit. That we understand. The noble Earl's letter continues: After the uprating in April 1989 it is estimated that the number of pensioners still needing transitional protection will have reduced to 270,000. Thus the majority will not suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit. If the noble Earl is correct in that last sentence, it would seem to imply that 270,000 pensioners will suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit. I wonder whether the noble Earl is correct, because it seems to me that the phrase, thus the majority will not suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit", is a non sequitur. It seems to me that after a year has passed the 380,000 pensioners who no longer require transitional protection will have found that their new entitlement to income support will have reached the level that they were formerly receiving.

In order for them not to have suffered any decline in real value it would have been necessary for the transitional protection to be index-linked. The fact that it is not index-linked means that they all will suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit. In other words, 650,000 pensioners will remain entitled to benefit but they will suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit. That is one substantial reason for supporting the Motion proposed by the noble Countess.

8 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, we could spend our time going into a great deal of detail about this statutory instrument, but the most important thing is for us to try to go back to some of the underlying philosophy. We unfortunately passed the Social Security Act last year. A main part of that Act was to provide that important matters should be dealt with by regulations and by statutory instruments and not by legislation. We have tonight an example of matters brought before us by statutory instrument which ought to have been in the primary legislation. If that had happened, and it is what ought to have happened, we should have had Notes on Clauses and more public information about these matters.

When I was trying to do some work on this matter I had to refer to the Offical Report of the other place for 11th January. At col. 177 a Minister said: After the draft version of the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 had been placed in the Library on 3rd November, legal advice led to a number of technical and drafting changes to ensure that the regulations more accurately reflected the original policy intentions". I am not sure what the word "more" means. Certainly to have something more accurately rather than more inaccurately does not seem to give the impression that there is total accuracy in the policy intentions. This is what is before us this evening. I find it a great pity that in this short time we are having to look at something which affects thousands of people in this country and that we have only something more accurately and not totally accurately before us.

I must ask the Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that these revised regulations are being explained to his staff and, even more important, to the public. We have great difficulty, and so does the other place, in dealing with these regulations. I do not think that anybody here would claim particular knowledge or understanding of the semantics of the DHSS, but if we have problems what is the position of claimants, of people in trouble and poverty who go to their local office and do not know what to ask, and are met by people who do not know what to tell them? I must ask the Minister whether his department is putting out any leaflets to clarify this, or whether there is any way in which people can be helped to understand these indescribably complicated regulations.

I understand that the protection on the interim payments is in cash terms. I cannot find that there is any increase in April for many people who will be in need. For instance, what about people who will suddenly find themselves having to pay 20 per cent. of their rates? What is going to happen to people who may have to go into hospital for a period? Will they lose their benefit rights and their interim rights, or can they come out after a time in hospital, and if so after how much time, and then pick up their rights? When do these rules begin and when do they end?

It seemed to me, before the lawyers were brought in to put things right, that paragraph 16 in the original draft excluded persons on housing benefit supplement. In the final draft I cannot find whether people who were regularly on housing benefit supplement are still specifically included or excluded. I hope the Minister can say that they will be all right in these new regulations.

Also under paragraph 16, there is an exclusion for people on board and lodging. Why is this happening? Some of the people who are dependent on allowances from the DHSS for board and lodging are the worst off in the country. They are people who have no homes; they are people who are putting up wherever they can get a roof over their heads. If the Minister can tell me that under these new regulations they are not going to be any worse off than they are now I shall be glad, but I have not been able to read this into the statutory instrument before us.

Those are some of the most important questions which concern those of us on this side, but the basic problem is that the Government are going wrongly about this whole question of social security. They are not putting enough matters into legislation. They are relying too much on regulations to which the ordinary public has no access. I challenge the Minister to tell me what access the public has to these extensive regulations, which are not normally available and are certainly not available in the social security offices in my area of central London where there are many people who are in trouble and who need to know about these matters.

I hope that I have not gone beyond the rules of order tonight, but I think it is important that we should hear from the Minister what is being done to make people aware of these transitional regulations and to instruct his staff—some of whom I know are unaware of these regulations—so that we can somehow take a step forward to make the public and the people in need more informed, and the people trying to help them in his offices more informed of what they can do about these matters.

8.7 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for this opportunity to debate the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations. These regulations, which provide for the administrative arrangements necessary for the changeover from supplementary benefit to income support and for the manner in which claimants' income is to be protected at the point of change, are of vital interest to several million people. I welcome this occasion to put on record just how the new scheme will affect these people.

The special administrative arrangements are needed for the change from supplementary benefit for technical reasons connected with the fact that income support is a new benefit. The second part of these regulations is concerned with the protection of the income of supplementary benefit claimants whose entitlement to income support would otherwise be less than their supplementary benefit entitlement.

The Government thought it right to provide transitional protection to protect the cash position of those who would otherwise have lost as a result of the reforms, and to ease their adjustment to the new levels of benefit. For householders, the transitional protection arrangements will also ensure that the extra benefit towards the average contribution that they make to their domestic rates will be fully available in addition to the protected allowance for other living costs. Special transitional protection, which will be protected against the effect of rising prices at future upratings, will also be available to meet the cost of domestic assistance for those few severely disabled people who had a supplementary benefit additional requirement for this cost of more than £10 and for whom the income support severe disability premium does not meet the charge.

The number of claimants who are expected to benefit from this protection is in excess of 1,400,000 at a cost of £200 million. Noble Lords are well aware of the reasons for the reforms. They have been thoroughly debated in this House and in another place. Tonight, therefore, I shall concentrate on the points raised in the debate.

Turning to the points made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I am pleased to be able to reassure her about her concern that former supplementary benefit recipients who qualify for transitional protection only next April will lose their automatic entitlement to "fringe" benefits such as free prescriptions, free welfare foods and dental and optical care. These benefits are of considerable importance to a large number of claimants and it is not the case that those getting protection only will lose their automatic entitlement to them. Transitional protection is, in fact, income support for the purpose of these fringe benefits.

However, on the proposal by the noble Countess that the comparison between the old and new schemes should cover a period of 13 weeks in all cases, I very much regret that it would not be possible, for operational reasons, to adopt it. Such a rule would be hopelessly complicated for our local office staff to administer and would jeopardise the conversion exercise. I am afraid that in most cases the snapshot has to be limited to the two weeks immediately surrounding the change. Temporary changes in circumstances may well affect protection. However, there is a special safeguard for people in residential care and nursing homes, hostels and certain types of board and lodging accommodation who are temporarily absent from their normal accommodation on 11th April. On their return to the accommodation, any protection payable will be calculated as if the claimant had been present in the relevant weeks. This special provision reflects the fact that the benefit in payment in these cases includes the cost of lodgings, as well as board, and will enable people to return to the accommodation which they had come to regard as their home.

I am grateful to the noble Countess and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for drawing our attention to the position of people who go into respite care. The benefit payable to single people who go into respite care provided normally by the local authority remains unchanged. Thus their protection will not be affected by the stay. The position of couples where either or both goes into local authority respite care depends upon whether they need extra benefit to meet the charge, if any. If extra benefit has to be paid, it is quite true that, as the regulations stand, normal protection would be affected. Clearly, this is of concern to the noble Countess and noble Lords, and we will certainly give further thought as to whether the circumstances are sufficiently compelling to make an exception to the normal protection rules for this group of people. We have to remember, however, that the more exceptions we make, the more complex we make the system. While we have special rules to cushion people with high domestic assistance charges against cost of living increases, we cannot protect people for each and every change in their circumstances for an indefinite period.

The noble Countess is also concerned about the special transitional protection awarded to people who do not qualify for the severe disability premium. I would remind noble Lords that we are talking about supplementary benefit domestic assistance additions of £10 a week or more. If the severe disability premium is not payable it is the intention that the whole amount of the domestic assistance addition will be protected. The interpretation of the regulation as presently drafted is a matter for the independent statutory authorities, but, as we understand it, the authority concerned is content that the provision achieves the intention. People who do not qualify for the severe disability premium will therefore have full protection for high domestic assistance additions.

There is no provision in the regulations for uprating domestic assistance additions when the claimant's circumstances change and more help is needed, or for meeting the cost of services provided by community service volunteers or other voluntary organisations. Both I and my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled are well aware of the splendid work done by these organisations to enable the severely disabled to live independently in the community, but we cannot carry forward into income support the detailed rules of the supplementary benefit scheme. The new rules for the severe disability premium of £24.75 a week cater specially for live-in care provided by voluntary organisations, so the presence of this type of helper does not disqualify the claimant as regards the premium.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, is right in her assertion that there is no provision to transfer protection from a parent to a child when that child reaches the age when he or she can claim in his or her own right. It would be difficult in some cases and impossible in others to allocate the protection to individual members of the family, particularly if part of the addition had already been eroded. Effectively it would mean carrying forward the rules of the old scheme into the new one solely for this protection. Children who become independent of their parents after next April will be able to qualify for the premiums on the same terms as anyone else, and the protection provided to the parents will remain the same in spite of this change.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, along with other noble Lords, asked about the position of disabled people under the reforms. It is quite true that people can build up quite high entitlements through additional requirements though in practice multiple receipt is relatively rare. For example, in 1986 only 5 per cent. of pensioners and 15 per cent. of the sick and disabled under pension age had three or more of these additions. Also, I must advise noble Lords that some of these additions were in urgent need of an overhaul and, but for the reforms, I am sure that we should have had to take a close look at the reasons for, and level of, these additions. As things stand now we go forward into income support with a system of premiums which will broadly help those who need additional requirement additions now. In the long term we will keep the premiums under review, particularly in the light of the survey on disablement by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and of Sir Roy Griffiths' overview of community care.

In the immediate future, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has announced that he is addressing urgently the problem of how best to direct extra help to the very small group of severely disabled people who need considerable help to live independently in the community, and who claim after next April. I know that this is a matter of considerable concern to noble Lords and I can assure them that the Government intend to find a solution to it. As my honourable friend made clear in another place on 12th January, the problem is under consideration with the help of the voluntary sector.

I should like now to turn to a few points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about savings in 1988–89 from uprating by 4.5 per cent., to 5 per cent. instead of 6.5 per cent. to 7 per cent. the illustrative figures set out in the technical annexe to the White Paper. It would have cost an additional £156 million in public expenditure to set the rates for 1988–89 at the higher levels.

Lord Carter

My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that, if the figure of £150 million is correct, of the £200 million that is the cost of transitional protection, £150 million of it has been provided by not uprating the benefit?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, perhaps I may correspond to the noble Lord on that point because it would be inappropriate for me to give an answer which was not totally accurate.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to "passporting" to benefits such as free prescriptions. I can repeat my earlier assurance that recipients of income support, including those who receive only a transitional protection, will be entitled to free prescriptions, free welfare foods and dental and optical care.

I appreciate the worries that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has about the effect on transitional protection of admission to hospital. The income support payable to people who go into hospital after next April remains unchanged for six weeks. This means that protection also remains unchanged as the vast majority of people, over 90 per cent., are discharged from hospital within this period. They will not lose their protection beyond the six-week period. The special protection is safeguarded for a further eight weeks. Overall, therefore, these rules are not ungenerous.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has suggested that we should extend real terms protection to cover normal as well as special transitional additions. Cash protection is the normal way to protect existing beneficiaries when benefit rules change. The cost will be £200 million for the first year on this occasion. The special protection for the domestic assistance addition recognises the exceptional difficulties of this small group of severely disabled people.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of the number of people who receive transitional protection. As I said earlier, that is 1.4 million altogether. Putting that into context, under the reform scheme 2.8 million will receive more under income support than they would under supplementary benefit.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked whether housing benefit supplement will be protected. Housing benefit supplement, which is an adjunct to housing benefit, ceases before the introduction of income support. People who were formerly recipients will be able to look to income support for assistance.

The noble Baroness raised the question of providing information to all those who will be able to take advantage of these benefits. Copies of our regulations are available for inspection in all our local offices and if the noble Baroness has had difficulties with offices in her area we should be very glad to hear of them.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the publicising of income support. Publicity for the income support scheme will be tackled by a variety of methods, and it might be worth spending a short time to explain this. Existing supplementary benefit claimants will each receive a short leaflet and a personalised letter explaining their entitlement under the new scheme. There will also be a new range of leaflets and postal claim forms and the existing supplementary benefits handbook will be replaced by a new, free, technical guide covering income support. This is intended primarily for advisory groups, but copies will also be available to individual claimants. The new leaflets and claim forms will be available from April, but in the meantime we have produced a pack of fact sheets about the new social security benefits, including income support, and copies are available from local offices.

No one in your Lordships' House would contest that the supplementary benefit scheme is in urgent need of reform. These regulations are crucial to that reform, and therefore I strongly urge noble Lords to give them their support.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that I appreciate all the helpful information he has given. However, I did ask one question— and I apologise for having asked so many questions—on Clause 16(2) of the statutory instrument, which states: A person who is in board and lodging accommodation or a hostel shall not be entitled to a special transitional addition". Is it possible for the noble Lord to explain that, because it seems to discriminate against some very poor people? Otherwise, perhaps he would write a letter to me.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I wonder if I might ask another question before the noble Lord sits down. Would he agree that the 650,000 pensioners referred to in his letter to me of 14th December will in fact all suffer a decline in the real value of their benefit, contrary to what he states in the letter?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, first, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I apologise for not having answered that particular point. Perhaps he will allow me to correspond with him more deeply on this. I am well aware of the answer I gave him in that particular letter, and I should like to be quite certain that the question he has raised is answered properly.

As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I repeat that I regret that the snapshot has to be limited to the two weeks immediately surrounding the change in most cases. A temporary change in circumstances may well affect protection. However, there is a special safeguard for people in residential care, in nursing homes, in hostels and in certain types of board and lodging accommodation who are temporarily absent from their normal accommodation on 11th April.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for being so helpful, or perhaps I should say for trying to be so helpful. I know perfectly well that he means to be.

I am not entirely happy about some of the answers I have received. It seems to me that a very small minority of severely disabled people are going to suffer financially despite the promises of the Government, purely and simply because Her Majesty's Government thinks it is too complicated to make special exceptions for them. Tomorrow I shall read in Hansard with very great interest what the Minister has said, and if I have any other points perhaps I may write to him. In the meantime I wish to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 20 minutes to nine o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.27 to 8.40 p.m.]