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

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in

clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).

This is a probing amendment. Those are famous last words, but I am sure that there is a simple explanation, probably on the piece of paper that the Minister is proudly waving at me.

The clause states that people are disqualified from any of the £100 if they have been a hospital in-patient

''throughout the period of 52 weeks ending with the relevant week''.

Foolishly, I reached for the explanatory notes, which in their wonderfully delphic way state that

''subsection (1) prescribes the conditions under which individuals who would otherwise qualify for a payment will be disqualified from receiving a payment. These are (a) receiving free in-patient hospital treatment continuously for 52 weeks including the relevant week''.

All that does is recite the clause, which is all very helpful, but which does not take matters much further forward. I am sure that whoever produced the explanatory notes was working under great pressure, because there was no thought that they would have to produce them—or even the Bill—when this process started.

I am sure that the Minister is going to tell me that this is simply a read-across from council tax or other benefit regulations, and if that is the case, that is fine—although judging by the length of the reply that he is thumbing through, it might not be that simple. However, let us take as an example somebody with a chronic condition who could have been in hospital for the whole of the preceding year and then have come out. We would come back to the problem of the relevant week—of having a qualifying week in the first place. Perhaps that person had been bed-blocking, which is a massive problem in my local hospital. Apart from all these fines whizzing between different organisations, thanks to the ludicrous legislation that the Government have passed, there is the human problem of people who are perfectly fit to go home, but who cannot get out of hospital.

The Government have created a waiting list not only to get into hospital but, miraculously, to get out of hospital. It would be very unfair for somebody who was in hospital for the 52nd week and then discharged to get nothing, even if it were down to the failing of Government policy that they were in hospital when they were perfectly fit and ready to be discharged. There is a potential unfairness, and I will be interested to hear the Minister's explanation for it.

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

I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. The rationale for saying that people in hospital should not get social security benefits is sometimes that certain of their costs do not exist because they are in hospital. I have never been convinced by that argument, but in the case of council tax policy I am rather confused. The clause appears to be less of a problem for couples, because I think I am right in saying that so long as one of them is not in hospital, the £100 can go to that person. However, with a single person, whose house is presumably unoccupied for a year while they are in hospital long term, it would depend on the local authority whether they had to pay council tax. Perhaps I am wrong, as the Minister is looking rather chipper.

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

Rather than keep the hon. Gentleman in suspense, which I like to do on less charitable days, I should tell him that an unoccupied dwelling will be exempt from council tax liability where the owner or tenant of the dwelling has their sole or main residence in a hospital, residential care home, nursing home or hostel, in which they are receiving care or treatment. If the patient has left behind a partner, the partner will be entitled to a 25 per cent. single person's discount on council tax.

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

That was the assumption I was working on.

The other reason why this is a good amendment is that there is incoherence at the heart of the Bill. The Government say that it is about helping with council tax; they then say that people who are not paying council tax—ordinary people on pension credit in ordinary homes, who are getting their full council tax paid—can have £100 because the Government want to give them £100. People in hospital, however, who are not paying council tax either, will not be given £100 because, the Government ask, why do they need it when they are not paying council tax? It is rubbish. Why discriminate against old people who do not pay council tax because they are ill by saying that they cannot have any help while saying that healthy old people who do not pay council tax because they are on council tax benefit can have help?

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

The Opposition amendment would have the effect of paying the extra £100 to the 6,000 people aged over 70 who have been in hospital for more than a year. That would cost £600,000.

Before I go into the detail of the amendment, I shall set it in context. Clause 4 prescribes the circumstances in which a person may be disqualified from receiving a payment. That includes those who have been receiving free in-patient hospital treatment continuously for 52 weeks, subject to this amendment, those who are in custody and those who are subject to immigration control. Again, that mirrors the criteria for the winter fuel payment system. The clause also provides for an eligible partner of the disqualified person to be treated as a single person for the purposes of this payment, so they will not lose entitlement because of their partner's disqualification.

To provide some statistical backing to the clause, the vast majority of people who are admitted to hospital—97 per cent.—are discharged within six weeks. Until April last year, benefits and pensions were reduced initially after six weeks with a further reduction at 52 weeks. Hospital downrating was the subject of controversy and, obviously, policy development, so I hope that members of the Committee recognise that there has been a massive improvement in the situation.

People in hospital can now keep their benefits in full for the first 52 weeks. Housing benefit and council tax benefit usually stop altogether after 52 weeks unless, of course, the patient has a partner still living at home. As I said earlier, patients who were previously living alone and still have a property will not have a council tax liability. An unoccupied dwelling is exempt from council tax when the owners or tenants have their sole or main residence in a hospital while receiving treatment or care. If the patient has left behind a partner, the partner will be entitled to 25 per cent. single person discount. If patients have partners, the Bill makes provision after 52 weeks for their eligible spouses to be treated for the purposes of the payment as a single person. They will receive £100 in their own right if they were the only eligible person in the household.

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

Let us take the case of a 71-year-old person who is married to a 69-year-old. Will the Minister confirm that if the 71-year-old was in hospital, the 69-year-old who had to put up with her husband being in hospital for a whole year would not receive a penny of help?

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

We have explained that the Bill will bring forward £100 or variations of that to members of households who in the eligible week are over 70 years old. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the position. We cannot change the rules because of the hospital circumstances of one's partner. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is pointing at. I am sure that he will enlighten us.

It is fair to draw the inference that the small number of people who remain in hospital for 52 weeks or more do so other than as a temporary arrangement. In essence, the hospital has become their home. The patients' day-to-day living expenses and food are provided through public funds by the national health service. They retain an entitlement to only a residual amount of state pension and benefits to meet their personal day-to-day expenses—toiletries, magazines and so on. The £100 payment is intended to help pensioners pay their council tax bills. People who live permanently in hospitals do not have a council tax liability. In view of my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will withdraw the amendment.

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

When I got up this morning, I thought that the Bill was little, simple and straightforward, despite its bizarre basis, but it is unravelling before our eyes. I shall withdraw the

amendment. What good will it do not to? Matters are becoming far too complex. If it is the Government's intention to give £100 to everyone over the age of 70 in the hope that they will receive an electoral benefit in return, why do they not just do it? They lambasted us for considering the over-60s and they lambasted the Liberal Democrats, although less so, for considering people who could qualify within the year, which was another £20 million. It is not for me to advise the Government. I think that it was Napoleon who said, ''Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.'' Having failed to achieve an electoral boost, why are the Government nitpicking? It is extraordinary.

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

I am confident that, at the end of today's proceedings, it will be the hon. Member for Eastbourne who will have met his Waterloo. I emphasise that hospital downrating does not now occur until after 52 weeks. Under a previous Administration, it was only a few weeks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation now is a vast improvement on what we had during those leaner and meaner days?

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

I do not know about leaner and meaner days. As the hon. Member for Northavon said with his usual acuity, the Bill will discriminate against people who are ill. I cannot see the point of that. What the Government are setting out to do might be wrong-headed or ill-intentioned, but it is simple. Simplicity is its one saving grace; if one is over 70, one will get £100. Suddenly, complexity starts popping up. I slightly despair of the Department, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members:

No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.