HL Deb 06 November 1991 vol 532 cc215-6

2.50 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:

What plans they have to help people who cannot pay essential hills because of benefit reductions imposed during a hospital stay in excess of six weeks.

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

My Lords, we are not convinced that any special plans are necessary. Approximately 97 per cent. of hospital in-patients are discharged within six weeks. Although benefit levels are then reduced, in-patients have already experienced an immediate reduction in their day-to-day expenditure. There is therefore an initial financial gain followed only later by lower benefit levels reflecting lower outgoings.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, is not the department receiving many letters on this subject, which seems to show that the cases are more widespread than it says? Is it not the case that the noble Lord's colleagues in another place, as recently as 8th June 1989—

Noble Lords

Reading!

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I am reading the date. Is it not the case that as recently as 8th June 1989 the Minister's colleagues in another place were saying that they were looking into the matter and hoped to do something about it as soon as possible?

Lord Henley

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. We have received a large number of letters on the issue. but we are not aware of any problems being suffered by individuals.

Lord Carter

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some quite severely disabled people refuse hospital treatment which could alleviate their condition because they know that even a short stay in hospital means that they will suffer a reduction in their benefits? Can the Minister tell the House how much the Government save as a result of the rule? If sick people lose benefits because of a stay in hospital can the Minister say where they should go for help, because the Social Fund specifically rules out payments for fuel and housing?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I should certainly advise people who refuse hospital treatment for that reason that they are making the wrong decision. The noble Lord asked whether there are any savings. There are no savings. It has always been the case that the state should not make double provision for the same eventuality. It would therefore be wrong to continue to pay, for example, a pension to someone who is being maintained free of charge by the National Health Service.

Lord Carter

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when claimants who receive transitional protection revert to benefits they receive a lower rate of benefit because of the hospital break rule?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the issue of transitional protection. Anyone who is not on transitional protection but on ordinary benefit will revert to their proper rate.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that crucial to the solution of the very real problem put to him by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is the adequate provision of hospital social workers who, as the noble Lord knows, help and advise patients on these difficult matters? Is he also aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the lack of provision of hospital social workers, particularly in some London hospitals, because of disputes about whether they should be provided by the social services department or the hospital? The noble Lord will know that I have had a great deal of correspondence with his noble friend Lady Hooper on this subject. Can he tell the House whether that problem has now been solved and whether hospitals are now adequately staffed with hospital social workers?

Lord Henley

My Lords, the subject of hospital social workers is another question. I can only repeat that we are not aware of any particular problems being suffered by individual claimants.