Clause 5 - Procedure
Age-Related Payments Bill
10:15 am

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in

clause 5, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State shall send information about claiming council tax benefit to every person to whom he makes a payment.'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in

clause 5, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

'(6) The Secretary of State will take steps to ensure that a person who needs to make a claim under sections 2 or 3 is informed about his entitlement to the payment, and will encourage him to make a claim under subsection (3).'.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

Two issues are involved in this group of amendments. They relate to the take up of council tax benefit and to the take up of winter fuel payment, and, by extension the one-off age-related payment.

Amendment No. 11 is intended to ensure that when people receive the so-called universal payment, which we have discovered is means-tested, they also receive information about council tax benefit. Again we must suspend disbelief and assume that the Bill is being introduced for the reasons given by the Government rather than for the real ones. That is to say, we must assume that it is intended to help pensioners pay their council tax, although one might have thought that encouraging people to claim the benefit that covers council tax was the best way to help with that. It is indicative of the fact that the Government have more or less given up on ever making headway on that front that they are introducing a separate payment to help old people to pay it. They do not think that council tax benefit will ever reach all the people that they want it to get to.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us about the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), and all the wonderful work that he is doing to encourage pensioner take-up of council tax benefit. However, I think that the percentage of eligible pensioners claiming it has fallen under this Government. The absolute numbers have increased, but that is partly because council taxes have gone up. That is not a reason for celebration, although the Minister seems to think that it is. No doubt, he will tell us that the situation is great because the Government are paying more council tax benefit to more pensioners.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that entitlement to council tax benefit has increased because of the development of pension credit?

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

There are two main reasons.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman was coming to that.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed.

There are two main reasons why the number of pensioners on council tax benefit has increased. It need not have done. One is that the thresholds increased when the pension credit was introduced, which further indicates the complexity of the Government's means-testing approach. The other is that council taxes have increased. I forget the exact figure, but it something like 70 per cent. under this Government. They should not claim too much credit for driving more people into poverty and the need to claim council tax benefit, then say that that is a policy triumph. Under this Government the proportion of pensioners who get the

help with council tax that the state believes they need has fallen. That is critical. The take-up rates, as a percentage of those who are eligible, have fallen.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. More pensioners are eligible for council tax benefit in Aberdeen, because the new Liberal council has increased the council tax way above inflation, with the second largest increase in Scotland. Would not it be better if information about council tax benefit were sent to people with the council tax information? That is much more appropriate than what is done now, because it is easier for people to relate the benefit that they might receive, or the claim that they might make, with the tax.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

I have no problem with that. I suspect that the vast majority of local authorities do that. In the glory days in South Gloucestershire, when the council was run by the Liberal Democrats, council tax information was sent out with the bills. That is right. However, the system is not working, and we want one that works.

The £100 payment is testimony to the fact that council tax benefit is not working. If the council tax benefit system worked, everybody who needed help with council tax would get it, and we would not need a separate bureaucratic system to deliver a separate payment to poorer pensioners. Then we could have a decent pension and a decent system of help with council tax. Obviously, we would prefer to scrap the council tax, but that is beyond the scope of the amendment. We need to make council tax benefit work for as long as we have to put up with council tax.

Amendment No. 11 would ensure that people are reminded about benefits when they receive the payment under the Bill, which is allegedly something to do with council tax. Given that that would come more or less in mid-year, or towards the end of the calendar year, or two thirds of the way through the financial year, it would be a good complement to the sort of information that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said should be sent to people at the start of the financial year, or just before it. It will provide a reminder and further information, roughly six months on, which can only help.

Meanwhile, the Bill is trying to redeem the irredeemable. We have an unfair local tax system and an ineffective rebate system, and we need a third payment to deal with those two problems. We are trying, through amendment No. 11, to make the best of a bad job by saying, ''If we must have this ineffective, complex system, let's at least ensure that people claim what they are entitled to.'' I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 11.

Amendment No. 13 gnaws away at a slightly different issue. The Bill mirrors the winter fuel payments system, and age-related payments will be delivered through that mechanism. However, there is a problem of small take-up with the winter fuel payment. Two groups are worried. First, there are the men aged 60 to 64, who suddenly became entitled

through a court case, although we are not talking about that group here, because we are dealing only with the over-70s. Secondly, a small number of people who do not receive winter fuel payments automatically have to make a claim, but fail to do so. We are talking about thousands of people.

Amendment No. 13 encourages the Government to be proactive, because they are failing to get winter fuel payments to thousands of people over 70 in the specific circumstances in which they have to make a claim. Under the amendment the Government would be required to encourage people who fall in that fairly narrowly defined category to claim the payment. That is a rather different take-up point.

Amendment No. 11 is the main amendment because it is meant to tackle the woeful take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. From what I can gather, the hon. Member for Eastbourne often slips in at dinner parties the fact that council tax benefit has the lowest take-up of any means-tested benefit. I have met people with whom he has had dinner, and they say that he slips that out at every opportunity. That fact is true, particularly among pensioners. Council tax benefit, which is intended to relieve the burden of council tax, is not working. The amendment would at least ensure that a few more of Britain's hard-pressed pensioners would get the help to which they are entitled.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I do not support amendment No. 11, because I agree with two parts of what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said. She and I, and a lot of other Committee members, share the problem of having a Liberal Democrat council. In our case, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in its element of the council tax in two years, which is disgraceful. Although, philosophically, I am not a capper, if any council deserved to be capped, it was Shepway district council, which had the highest increase this year of 28 per cent. We all know who runs that council at the moment.

I also agree with the hon. Lady about timing. As part of the laudable attempt to try to improve take-up of council tax benefit, the obvious time to send out a form or leaflet is at the same time as the council tax demand, because that is when people are hit, particularly by a big increase by a spendthrift Liberal Democrat council.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Northavon never goes to anything as frivolous as a dinner party, and I cannot remember trotting out the latest figures for take-up of council tax benefit, as he put it, but it is extraordinary that they show a substantial decrease. The situation is worse than it appears, because within those figures—this is the point at which guests at this fictional dinner party start to see their lives flashing before them—there are other, hidden problems, which I explain on these occasions, such as that older pensioners are less likely to claim than younger ones and that older owner-occupiers are particularly unlikely to claim. I assume that that is because in many

cases owner-occupiers cannot imagine that they qualify. There is no point banging on about this because it is in the statistics.

It is good that the Government are having another campaign to try to increase take-up, but they are attacking the problem from the wrong end. The real solution is not to have great surges in council tax as a direct result of Government policy.

What the Government are trying to do is absurd. Let us assume for a moment that the average pensioner was not born yesterday—far from it, of course—and fails to see through what the Government are up to. They are not going to be wildly impressed with getting the £100 about eight months after they get their council tax demand. This is another strange feature of the proposal.

Because of the Government and Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, council tax bills for the average band D home have increased by 70 per cent. The typical household pays almost £500 extra a year under this Government. The problem is that that has the greatest impact on pensioners, which is why we are here today, and, as I have explained, that is compounded by the low take-up of council tax benefit.

If we want to help older pensioners and to mitigate the effects of big increases in council tax, why develop a system that does not give them the money until many months later? They get their council tax demand at around Easter, and they get the money at around Christmas. There is no logic to that. It is another example of the Government not having thought things through.

I do not blame the Minister for that. I blame the Chancellor. If he had taken the Minister a bit more into his confidence about what he had in mind, we might not be in the mess that we are in at the moment.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I am just trying to work out the relevance of all of this to the amendments.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

Let the Minister try to do his job properly before he starts trying to do yours, Mr. Conway.

I am trying to explain to the Minister—in words of one syllable or less, because these concepts can be quite punishing—why I do not support amendment No. 11, and why I think that it is bizarre that there will be such a big time lag between council tax demands and payment. That is a simple point.

The Minister has a great wad of briefing that I am sure he often trots out at his own dinner parties. The Minister, the hon. Member for Northavon and I are very sad people; we bore for Britain on these issues because we think that they are important. However, on this occasion I think that the Minister has got it wrong again.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I will not follow that, because there is nothing to follow. I shall speak to the amendments. Is there a problem with the take-up of council tax benefit? Yes, there is, although I do not discuss it at dinner parties, as I prefer to talk about the prospects for Crystal Palace football club at the weekend.

Nevertheless, there is a major problem with the take-up of council tax benefit, which is why we are in the middle of a major campaign about it. There are excellent examples of good practice. For example, there has been much success in the Wirral. I shall not spend time describing it, however, because I accept the proposition.

Given that relatively few people might not automatically receive the £100 payment, I accept that we must do everything possible to inform them about it. As part of our campaign for winter fuel payments, we plan to advertise the new £100 payment. I shall not go wider because, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, it is not within our powers this morning , even if we wanted to, to abolish council tax, to introduce a local income tax or to inaugurate a new Gladstone Administration. For good or ill, such matters are outside the scope of the Bill.

The most interesting point that has been made is whether we might use the fact that we will be mailing the winter fuel payment to all pensioners to better publicise council tax benefit. That has occurred to us; it is a useful idea. I cannot promise that we will definitely do it. There may be administrative complications, but I am keen on the idea. If we can implement such practice, we do not need to stop at council tax benefit but can include pension credit and issues relating to energy efficiency. It would not be appropriate to put such information in the Bill, but I hope, given my reassurances, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, although I accept its spirit.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister's response was statesmanlike. I was puzzled by his football peregrinations, but I shall leave that for another day. I was convinced that he was a Wolverhampton Wanderers supporter until the team was relegated. I am delighted that he has embraced the spirit of our proposal, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (b).

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in

clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out '31st March' and insert '30th June'.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment is simple. Why do we need a deadline or, as under amendment No. 5, why cannot the period be three months after the end of the financial year? When the winter fuel payment was introduced, there was no deadline for claiming. Although winter had long gone, people were still allowed to claim. I think that I am right in saying that it is still not too late to claim winter fuel payments for 1997-98 and 1999-2000. There are certainly some historic years for which a claim can be made. There was the case for several years, although I do not know whether that loophole has been closed.

When winter fuel payments first came in, the Government did not feel the need to have a claiming date. There is now a claiming date for the payments. The question is whether we need one and, if so, what it should be. I accept that the Government would not want a completely open-ended liability although, if they were confident of delivering the money to people, there would be no liability. In other words, the amendment would have no practical effect if the Government succeed. If they achieve 100 per cent. take-up, it will not matter what the cut-off date is for claiming. Everyone will receive it and there will not be a great, lurking liability.

In practice, because the measure is bolted on to the winter fuel payment mechanism, I imagine that there will not be a big take-up problem in relation to the £100 payment; that seems reasonable. The number of people who fail to claim by 31 March will be tiny, so the Department's exposure to people claiming the following summer or a year later will be minuscule in the scheme of the Department's spending. I really cannot see the case for a cut-off point. That is my argument for Amendment No. 12.

Amendment No. 5, with which amendment No. 12 is grouped, is in the same spirit; it says that the deadline in the Bill is too soon, and should be three months after the end of the financial year. That, too, is an attractive amendment, in that it mirrors the current process for backdating national insurance benefit claims; the deadline for that has hitherto been three months. My understanding is that 12 months' backdating of retirement pension claims will be allowed. If that is so, why should we not allow 12 months' backdating for age-related payments?

How do the provisions of the Bill cohere with the rest of the system? People will be paying council tax right up to 31 March 2005. The claim is relevant until that date; why should not people have at least three months after that date to claim the payments that, if we believe what we are told, are supposed to help them pay that tax? Why should not the provisions mirror those for national insurance benefits, or be extended to 12 months to reflect the backdating provisions for retirement pensions? At the very least, people should have more time than up until the last day on which they might pay the council tax; after all, it is the council tax with which they are trying to obtain some help.

One assumes that the vast majority of people will get the money; we are all happy about that. However, I hope that the Minister recognises that there will be a small number of people who, for whatever reason, fail to make a claim. One can think of the reasons why some people might not claim; those people might be the most elderly or the most confused, or people who have had health problems. In general, that makes them more deserving, in many ways. I hope that the Minister recognises that having a cut-off at the end of March and the end of the financial year is quite draconian. I hope that he is willing either to abolish the deadline or, at the very least, to extend it by three months.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has spoken to my amendment for me; that was very decent of him. Amendment No. 5 approaches the problem in a slightly different way to his amendment. It would include a further three months for backdated claims.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the provision will affect only a relatively small proportion of people. We have all come across cases in our constituency surgeries of unfairness—particularly concerning older people—arising from backdating rules, particularly the more draconian ones introduced early on in the period of office of this Government. At an age when, broadly speaking, people are looking for less complexity in their lives, they suddenly have a lot more complexity. They have the pension credit to think about, as well as other concerns, and council tax benefit, if they get round to claiming it. In the Bill, there is a new one-off payment that is wholly out on its own.

If a pensioner loses a spouse or experiences some other major life incident, they lose track of paperwork and may let time go by before they get round to claiming, so there should be some flexibility in the rules. We lighted on a deadline three months after the end of the financial year, but there may be other ways of addressing the issue. Given the confusion beginning to emerge about who is entitled to the £100 and who is not, it is quite possible that some pensioners who are entitled will not get it automatically, and may not get round to claiming it for some time.

I am now attracted, more than I was when drafting the amendment, by the idea of having no cut-off at all; I do not see that that can cause any great problems. I hope that the Minister has, in his wodge of papers, an estimate of the number of people who would have to claim later, and would not automatically get the money through the system. We can only be talking about relatively small amounts of money. However the Government want to approach the issue, if they accept the spirit of one or both amendments, we can move forwards. I do not see any particular reason why there should be a firm cut-off such as the one in the Bill.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

There was some sedentary puzzlement on the part of the Liberal Democrats when I mentioned Crystal Palace. For the historic record, I should say that I am a passionate supporter of Wolves. However, given that that team will, sadly, be spending some time in the first division, I am hoping that it will be replaced by my constituency team—the boys from Selhurst Park, Crystal Palace.

I hope that that is clear; I would not want there to be any mistake about that. I have not even mentioned that I come from a four-generation Arsenal family. That would complicate things. I should explain to the hon. Member for Eastbourne that this is not the game in which one picks up the ball and runs with it, but we can talk about that later.

Both the amendments relate to the very small number of households that will not receive the payment, along with the winter fuel payment, automatically. The only people who are required to claim the payment will be those who, for whatever reason, have not claimed their winter fuel payment for

2004. It is difficult to envisage why that would be the case, but none the less we need to cater for it in the legislation.

Amendment No. 12 would remove the cut-off point for making a claim, so that in theory a claim could be made any time in the future. There would be nothing to prevent a claim being made 10 or 20 years after the event. The hon. Member for Eastbourne did not think that there ever needed to be a cut-off point. If that were the case, we would have to set up arrangements for dealing with such claims, even though the numbers would probably be tiny. That would be impracticable and expensive.

The 31 March 2005 cut-off point applies to winter fuel payments. The rationale is that that payment covers the winter just gone, and that claims need to be finalised before work commences on the following winter's payments. The end of March cut-off date provides what I would argue to be a generous time frame for people to complete and return their claims, and for the Department to establish reliably that the qualifying conditions were met during the relevant week in September.

Allowing the claim period to run for more than six months would mean that people were not rushed into completing their forms—an important consideration for those who rely on help from relatives, friends, carers and neighbours, or who may have spent some time away from home for whatever reason.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

Neither of those arguments would apply to the one-off payment to help with council tax bills. The Minister said that there was a deadline three months after winter because it is a winter payment and people are given three months. However, if people are still paying council tax in March, they should also be given three months for a payment that helps with council tax.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne would do that. The Minister says that the deadline allows the Department to get going on the next year's payment. In this case, there ain't going to be a next year's payment.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I was talking about the winter fuel payment regime, which we are following for this—rightly, I think.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am now getting confused. The idea is that the vast majority of over-70s will simply get this money; it will pop up. I am not sure what the mechanism will be. Will the payment come as a separate cheque, or will it pop up as part of their pension payment? Perhaps the Minister could develop that a bit more.

In answering a question recently, he said that it had not been decided what mechanism was to be used. Now he is talking about a form. Will he tell us more about that? What form is that form going to take?

Does he envisage that all pensioners will fill it in to get the £100—or just the tiny minority who have slipped through the net? Will the form be long; will there be the prospect of a phone call to a call centre a la pension credit? How will it work?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

People will get their £100 added to the winter fuel payment. I thought that I had emphasised that enough to imply that that would be the delivery mechanism.

Amendment No. 5 would move the closing date to nine months after the last person had qualified. Again, realistically, there always has to be a cut-off point, and there will always be people who fall on the wrong side of it. The cut-off date for claiming affects very few people.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I make two points. First, a cut-off date often concentrates people's minds and ensures that they get their claim in; often an open-ended cut-off point means that people do not claim at all because they do not get round to it. Sometimes a deadline will resolve that.

Secondly, if a pensioner pays council tax by direct debit, the last payment will be in February, because such debits are normally spread over a 10-month period. Therefore, the March payment gives them at least a month or two, depending on how the money is taken out of their bank account.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for those points, which remind us that the starting point for this policy was the council tax liability. More than 99 per cent. of pensioners who are over 70 will receive the payment automatically. We know that they qualify and we have the information because they already receive the winter fuel payment. Only a tiny number of those who are 70 and over will need to make a claim, and they will have a good six months in which to do so. By making the overwhelming majority of payments automatically by November, our older pensioners will receive a lump sum in good time to provide real and welcome support in paying this year's council tax bill. That relates to the point that my hon. Friend made.

That is not all. By combining the payment with the winter fuel payment we are providing those older households with the optimum flexibility in deciding how to spend the money. As I have said, the cut-off date for claims mirrors what we have for the winter fuel payment system. I understand the points that colleagues have made. There will always be a few—very few, I hope—who fall the wrong side of the date. We must publicise this measure in the way that we have discussed.

The issues are difficult. In any kind of regime or organisation some administrative factors favour cut-off points. I hope that I have never been insensitive about the matter. I remember that when I was an Under-Secretary in this Department there was particular concern that some people did not apply for the £2,000 bereavement payment within the then three-month period. I was moved by hon. Members writing to me on behalf of constituents about tragic cases in which someone's husband had been killed in a crash, the woman had had a mental breakdown and she had not been able to apply within three months. It seemed to me that that administrative convenience, although it was perfectly sensible in some respects, had inappropriate human consequences. We changed that provision to 12 months. The burden of the argument

that we are discussing is nowhere near as strong as in that example, and I hope that hon. Members recognise that a cut-off point is not unreasonable.

Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

I could not help observing that in the course of our discussion I became more attracted to the Conservative amendment and the Conservative Member became more attached to the one that I tabled. That was an unusual swap.

On the balance of our arguments, I think that there is some merit in a cut-off. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South to talk about pensioners who pay by direct debit, but many over-70s do not pay in that way. They might even pay their council tax weekly, right up until the end of March. We are assuming that we are preserving the fiction that the payments have something to do with council tax. However, we are not giving people any time beyond the point where they stop paying council tax, which these payments are supposed to help with, to put their claim in. Three months beyond the end of the financial year ought to be the minimum, but we are not getting anywhere on this one with the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I wish to discuss an issue that I hoped to raise by way of amendment No. 6, which does not appear to have made the grade. It involves the last line of clause 5(3)(d). We have dealt with the question of the time scale for the claimant and the specification details are all set out. Claims will be made to the Secretary of State and we know that there will be another form. I hope that it will be relatively simple and straightforward.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that 99 per cent. of people will receive the payment automatically and will not have to fill in a form? I thought that I had mentioned the winter fuel payment system once or twice.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I think that I can grasp the concept of 99 per cent. However, the Minister should also appreciate that 1 per cent. means quite a lot of cases, and some of the individuals involved in them may have been subject to some of the tragic circumstances that he described in the context of bereavement allowance. It is easy to talk in percentages, but it is more relevant to talk about individuals. If we take the Minister's figures at face value, we are still talking about 1 per cent. of all the relevant people over 70.

I want to make a different point on the requirements for the claimant. There must be

''a declaration that the claimant was ordinarily resident in Great Britain on at least one day in the relevant week.''

The amendment that I had a stab at would have removed the phrase

''on at least one day in the relevant week.''

I can see the importance of being ''ordinarily resident''. That is a standard concept that is not difficult to prove—or disprove. However, why does there have to be this reference to just one day in the relevant week when the person could be in a different country for six of those seven days and for long periods either side of the relevant week? Is there not some scope for abuse here?

When we address pensioner organisations such as the National Pensioners Convention we tend to get into discussions about comparisons between different systems in different countries. I am always being told that some countries, such as Spain, give pensioners free holidays. There are enormous variations in how pensioners are treated by different national systems in the European Union, let alone elsewhere.

Someone who has a home in Spain or elsewhere might need to be here only for that one day in the relevant week. I hope and expect that the Minister will be able to tell me that there are other anti-avoidance provisions—that is a term that has come to be known and loved in discussions on the Pensions Bill—which will stop that abuse being perpetrated. However, it is odd that there is this artificial requirement of one day in the relevant week when the concept of being ordinarily resident, or even domiciled in the country, would happily suffice.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

To become entitled to this payment, an individual has to be

''ordinarily resident in Great Britain on at least one day in the relevant week.''

The amendment that has not been moved but the subject of which has been raised on stand part removes the requirement for the claimant to show that that criterion was met during the period.

The term ''ordinarily resident'' is backed up by a considerable body of case law. The ordinary residence test is one of the standard tests that we routinely use in the benefits system. There is no statutory definition of ''ordinarily resident'' but there is a body of established case law and each case is decided on its facts. Whether a person is resident or ''ordinarily resident'' in the United Kingdom is primarily a question of fact and degree. An individual is ''ordinarily resident'' if there is a degree of continuity about their residence so that it can be described as ''settled''. If they live mostly in the UK but also live elsewhere from time to time, they may remain ordinarily resident in the UK throughout their shorter period of residence elsewhere. The burden of proof is on the individual; they must prove that they meet the residency test. The reference to one day is not intended to allow someone to pop over to this country to be here in a particular week. There is a body of case law on being ''ordinarily resident''.

For someone to meet the ordinary residence test, they must prove that there is a degree of continuity to their residence and that the residence is settled. Factors such as where the rest of the family live, the sort of accommodation inhabited, and where furniture and

personal effects are, are taken into account. Day trippers coming into Great Britain will not be entitled to the £100 payment.

The legal issue about ''one day'' currently escapes me. I know that there is a reason why we refer to one day, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy if I write to him on that.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I absolutely agree—indeed, I made the point—that the concept of ordinary residence has a well accepted definition, not least in the context of tax. I have no difficulty with that. My only difficulty with the clause, as I hope I have made clear, is its mention of

''at least one day in the relevant week.''

That seems to open up the possibility of the day tripper receiving the payment. The clause does not say ordinarily resident or here on one day in a given week; it says ordinarily resident on that one day. I suspect that the day tripper would be ordinarily resident on one day in that particular week, and that is why the problem might arise.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. It is a complicated issue, not least because somebody who was ordinarily resident in Britain, but who had a fortnight's holiday in France or Italy during that September period, would not be debarred from the winter fuel or the £100 payments.

The problem of the one day is technical. People who have moved to the United Kingdom permanently—British people returning from abroad after a number of years, for example—may only be qualified for that one day in the qualifying week. The one-day issue relates to that specific eventuality.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to write to me. That will be helpful. It may assist him if I pin down my concern and express it a little more clearly. At the moment, we are all knocking on doors and are very conscious of the cut-off date for postal votes and proxy votes. There is the problem of people being abroad on the qualifying date or when the form arrives. That is why I am even more puzzled by the clause. If a person goes away on holiday and is abroad during that relevant week, but is otherwise ordinarily resident in the country, will that person still get the money? I suspect that the answer is yes. We will need to see the reasoning behind that ''yes'' in the letter.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I was temporarily confused by the one day myself. However, as I said, this is not about everyone having to return to this country, or about Britons of 80 years' standing having to come back from south America to get their £100 from the Government. Those people are ordinarily resident here.

I now realise that this is a much more technical issue. Let us say that a British family had lived on the continent for several years and came back here to retire. If the family members were judged ordinarily resident, being at this cut-off point in September for just one day, subject to other criteria, would make

them eligible for the winter fuel payment and the £100. I think that that is the explanation. However, I will write to clarify it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.