rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores the way that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008, laid before the House on 15 September, cut the backdating period for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit in most cases from 12 months to three months, and were:

(a) presented with inadequate evidence to support the policy; and

(b) laid during the Summer Recess to come into force on the day Parliament returned, thus not allowing Parliament to consider them before they came into effect; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations because they are likely to increase the number of evictions, and cause particular hardship to older pensioners and those with mental health impairments (SI 2008/2424).

My Lords, this Motion is couched in unusually fierce terms, but I believe that the criticisms of both the manner in which these regulations were laid and the policy they encapsulate are justified. I shall speak briefly about both the policy and the process. I am well aware of the time constraints of this dinner-hour debate, although I think I am right in saying that there is no formal time limit.

Among other things the regulations reduce the backdating rules for the payment of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit from 12 months to three months, although the Government have now agreed for a short period to stage the reduction of the backdating period for working-age claimants to six months for housing and council tax benefits.

The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, has issued its sternest warning—that the instrument may imperfectly achieve its policy objective. I shall come back to just what that policy objective is in a minute. The committee's view was reinforced by the powerful report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended unequivocally that the change of policy should be abandoned, as it was in 2000.

The reason for the recommendation is clear. During its own very short consultation, in the shocking absence of a formal consultation by the department, the SSAC had an unprecedented number of responses from all over the country and from such well respected organisations as Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, Crisis, Centrepoint, Age Concern, the RNIB and many others. They also included many local authorities from relatively affluent areas, such as that covered by Cambridge City Council, to the poorer areas covered by, for example, Bradford Metropolitan District Council, and scores of housing associations, which were all alarmed by the impact that the change would have on their clients. They all point to the weakness of the department's evidence base for the change in policy, leading the SSAC to say:

"We have concluded that the department has offered neither adequate evidence to support its case for change nor a convincing proposal for mitigation of the potential negative impacts of the change".

The Government even admit that their own data in this field are inadequate. To an inquiry by the Child Poverty Action Group to the housing benefit strategy division, the answer was:

"You asked about figures. Prior to April 2007, no information was collected from local authorities on the number of claims for backdating or the amount of backdated benefit paid out to HB/CTB claimants. Following the introduction of a new data source, this information will become available in the future, but at the moment, there is insufficient data to be able to estimate the number of claims or the amount spent on backdating".

No wonder the department did not want to risk a formal consultation with stakeholders, which should be the driver of policy, as the Merits Committee made clear. Even the department recognises that there may be impact on some customer groups, but it thinks that publicising the change of policy and encouraging take-up will be good enough to mitigate the change. So why are the Government hell-bent on changing the backdating rules, against the advice of all the groups that are, as it were, at the sharp end? The Government say that the change is needed as part of a wider simplification package to make the administration of the benefits less complex and better target resources. That is welcome in itself, but it is not relevant to most of the people who need the benefits.

Many of the respondents to the SSAC consultation suggested better ways of simplifying benefits. The chief executive of Homeless Link in London made a very good point when she said:

"The recent controversy over a 'tidying up' of the 10p tax rate shows how proposals which seem to be a neat simplification and to affect relatively low numbers can, when they hit low income groups, have a wider and unanticipated impact".

Another curious reason given by the department is that it wants to reduce the intrusion into a claimant's financial affairs. That simply does not hold water. If claimants were unhappy about such an intrusion, why would they claim in the first place when they know that it is part of the process?

I shall now look briefly at why these particular benefits are backdated at all, when other benefits cannot be backdated. The rationale for the 12-month backdating of pension credit was that it was a new benefit that was only brought in five years ago and was not widely known about. The Government believe that this is no longer the case. However, there are still many pensioners, possibly as many as four out of 10, living in poverty who are not claiming pension credit, in spite of government efforts to reach people who may have an entitlement. That is something the Government themselves have admitted. They also admit that the change in backdating rules could affect older claimants more and those with mental health problems or physical disabilities. In passing, it is worth pointing out that the Households Below Average Income report, which was published by the department on 10 June this year, points to an increase in pensioner poverty in 2006-07, most of the older pensioners, not surprisingly, being women.

Citizens Advice says that it is often called in when pensioners are literally running out of savings for everyday living, and it says that the 12-month backdating can be a lifeline for such people. There are two other groups of pensioners whose circumstances mean they do not immediately engage with the benefits system when they could be eligible; those whose partner dies, with all the upheavals that brings, and those who suddenly find themselves looking after grandchildren, perhaps following a family break-up. In the last instance, unless the new backdating rules are abandoned, this will almost certainly lead to more child poverty.

I turn now to the perhaps more pressing effects of the change of policy on working-age claimants of housing benefit and council tax benefit. In 2006-07, citizens advice bureaux dealt with over 8,000 inquiries relating to housing benefit backdating and over 5,000 inquiries relating to council tax benefit backdating. Those benefits, by their very nature, are targeted on the most vulnerable, because of the requirement to show good cause before a claim is even considered; and ignorance of the system is not good cause. Many groups make the point that housing benefit is different from other means-tested benefits, because it is paid to meet a defined liability rather than day-to-day living expenses, and it therefore requires more flexible backdating provision. If the benefit is paid direct to the landlord in arrears, there is often a delay before the claimant knows that their benefit has ceased and that they have to take action to reclaim. Even if the client is found to be missing just the odd week or two of housing benefit several months before help is sought, that is enough to tip the client into arrears and possible eviction. Court proceedings for eviction are often the trigger for a client to seek advice. Is it really going to save the public purse if the most vulnerable are made homeless?

Those people have been easily identified as being those who, on the whole, lead chaotic lives and who may have mental health problems, learning or language difficulties, those who may be victims of domestic violence, those on remand in prison, those sectioned under mental health legislation and those who have been in hospital. Those made homeless through these tougher backdating rules will have to be rehoused, unless they are to end up on the streets; no wonder so many housing associations have expressed alarm. There is, of course, a special concern where children are involved, as they will be, with all the knock-on costs to education, health and children's services that this will entail.

I shall now turn very briefly to the process by which these regulations came into force. They were tabled during the Summer Recess to come into force on the first day back, thus not allowing Parliament the chance to debate them before implementation. Yes, technically, it is within the rules, because praying time for negative instruments only starts when Parliament is in session, so in theory instruments can be voted down and the policy halted. But when the Government know that an instrument is particularly contentious, one cannot help feeling that they were trying to sneak it in under the radar. Tabling a controversial statutory instrument during a parliamentary recess to come into force on the day that Parliament returns makes a mockery of one of the main purposes of Parliament, and certainly of opposition parties, which is rigorous scrutiny of the Executive.

The Merits Committee report was extremely critical of the fact that the usual comprehensive impact assessment was not carried out so that we could all be convinced that the change in the backdating rules was a worthwhile exercise. In the end, the committee decided that none of the reasons that the Government seemed to be putting forward as the policy objective fitted in with one of the main aims of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is,

"working to end poverty in all forms".

If there were ever a time to change the backdating rules for these vital benefits, now is not the moment. It will affect the most vulnerable in our society when unemployment is rising rapidly and debt problems are mounting. There is no evidence of joined-up government thinking about the impact that this change of policy will have more widely. We on these Benches urge the Government to think again about these regulations, even at this late stage, and to revoke them as soon as possible. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That this House deplores the way that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008, laid before the House on 15 September, cut the backdating period for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit in most cases from 12 months to three months, and were:

(a) presented with inadequate evidence to support the policy; and

(b) laid during the Summer Recess to come into force on the day Parliament returned, thus not allowing Parliament to consider them before they came into effect; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations because they are likely to increase the number of evictions, and cause particular hardship to older pensioners and those with mental health impairments (SI 2008/2424). 28th Report from the Merits Committee.—(Baroness Thomas of Winchester.)

My Lords, in the briefing that I received from Shelter, these words came off the page for me:

"It is no exaggeration to say that these changes will inevitably cause homelessness in a number of cases".

That certainly got my attention. I am extremely familiar with the problems of housing benefit administration, which can hold things up almost interminably. I am glad to say that the administration of housing benefit has improved a good deal in the past three or four years. Further simplification is a thoroughly good idea.

I was surprised, therefore, to learn that it is still possible that people might need to have their backdating go all the way back 12 months. I asked Shelter and Citizens Advice, which has also carried out good work, through Liz Phelps's good offices. I received a couple of examples to show how the delays can lead to severe problems. I shall relate a successful story. Shelter stated:

"In late 2007 a housing aid centre case worker had a client in Hackney, a single man with significant mental health issues. He had a large gap in his HB (housing benefit) claim as a result of a failing on the part his support worker"— you cannot always blame the support worker, as these matters are extremely complicated, but it was the support worker's fault that the necessary forms had not been completed. The case study continued:

"The housing association landlord"—

I am afraid that housing associations evict people when they are in arrears; that is how it goes—

"had issued a notice to seek possession on the basis of rent arrears. As a result of Shelter's intervention under the current backdating rules, HB was backdated for the full 12 month period and the landlord withdrew the eviction proceedings".

I give small praise to the landlord for holding on as long as he did. In the end, that was justified, because he got his money.

In the second case, Shelter had been liaising with the Norfolk Offender Accommodation Forum, which has carried out work in this field looking at remand prisoners, who are entitled to housing benefit for initially up to 52 weeks. Shelter states:

"The chaotic organisation within the prison system may mean that claimants on remand are not able to complete a HB form until after the 3 month period. Resources are further strained in the prison system by the need for a new claim to be made even if the person was claiming HB before being sent to prison. This also has an impact on any partners involved who are also required to make a fresh claim due to a change in circumstances. Even when individuals are finally able to gain access to an advisor, they may be moved to another prison and end up back at the beginning of the process".

One can see how arrears can accumulate: claimants are not receiving the benefit to which they are entitled because they have not filled in all the necessary forms. If one thing is guaranteed to get someone, after leaving prison, reoffending and back into prison, it is that they do not have a home to go to. They do not have accommodation and there is an impact on their family, if they have one. There are still, and still likely to be, cases where the full 12-month backdating is essential if homelessness is to be prevented in relation to housing benefit. I hope that the Government will look at this again.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised an important issue. I am saddened by the Government's decision to reduce the time that people have to backdate their claims for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit from 12 months to three months. I am particularly worried about the situation of pensioners in this respect. It is disturbing for two reasons.

First, the Government recently changed their policy on pensions to allow women to buy back more years than was previously the case, recognising that many women's lives, with years spent caring for children or other relatives, meant that they did not have an opportunity to accumulate an adequate pension entitlement without that move. That was a sensitive and humanitarian decision affecting many people who would otherwise have had to manage for years on too little to have an acceptable standard of living.

Secondly, I am saddened because we are in a period when people on low incomes are among those most at risk of being hit by the economic slowdown. Many elderly people have been able to carry out urgent repairs or adaptations to their homes resulting from needs that have often been exacerbated by the fact that they have not received entitlements when they were due. Many have paid off debts with these backdated payments and we know the worry that debt leads to for most older people in this country.

The Government's rather rigid position of insisting on savings being made elsewhere in the benefits system before consideration can be given to this would mean that other low-income people would need to lose benefits to help those who needed access to these funds. We know that many old people will not seek help until things are really bad and that, without backdating, they will face real hardship. As it is, the take-up rate of benefits among pensioners is abysmally low at a time of high inflation and rocketing prices of essentials such as gas and electricity. As we face a difficult winter, it is hard to understand why the Government cannot rethink, as the noble Baroness said, even at this late stage, a decision that will hurt some of the most vulnerable people among our population.

My Lords, I have grave reservations about these regulations and believe that it is entirely right for the House to ask the Government to think again about them. The regulations have provoked strong opposition from those involved in the sector. The evidence base for saying that they will achieve their objective is weak. No impact assessment has been conducted. The DWP has not even consulted on them. In default of the department's doing so, the Social Security Advisory Committee carried out a consultation, which, although it lasted only a month, attracted an unprecedented number of responses. As a result, in an unusually critical report, the committee argued that the changes would cause hardship to the most vulnerable in society. To cap it all, as we have been told, the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments expressed its disappointment with the way in which the DWP presented its proposals and with the fact that an evidently controversial measure was laid during the Recess and came into effect on the day that the House returned. In other words, the measure has effectively been slid through while everyone was looking the other way.

I welcome government initiatives to simplify the benefits system and to improve the administration of benefits, when such reforms work to the advantage of people claiming benefit or, at any rate, do not actively work against them. One would imagine that reducing the number of benefits claimed by disadvantaged individuals and placed on overworked staff could only be a good thing. However, this attempt at simplification, which reduces the capacity for individuals to secure backdated pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit, appears to benefit only the administration and seems actually to work to the detriment of those experiencing difficulties with making benefit claims. That cannot be a good thing.

Evidence-based policy making should lie at the heart of government reforms, yet with these regulations the Government appear intent on ignoring both expert advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee and the unprecedented number of representations from organisations and individuals who have expressed concern about the impact of the regulations on vulnerable groups, as well as the Government's own targets to reduce poverty. For older people, removing the ability to claim back 12 months' pension credit, if they are eligible and choose to do so, conflicts directly with the aim of reducing pensioner poverty. Figures in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report indicate that in 2006-07 40 per cent of new claims were backdated for more than three months and 25 per cent of the total—some 70,000 claims in all—were backdated for 12 months. Although that is only a small proportion of the total, it is still a significant number.

The Government state that people claiming means-tested benefits should claim as soon as they become, or think that they may be, entitled to benefit, rather than wait to claim, but that rather misses the point that many people find out that they can claim only some way down the line. With more than 20 per cent of eligible older people still not claiming their entitlement to pension credit, one would have hoped that highlighting the possibility of an increased income through claiming pension credit, along with the possibility of 12 months' arrears where applicable, would serve to promote take-up and significantly improve this situation. It is clear that many older people delay in making claims for pension credit for a variety of legitimate reasons, whether it is from a lack of knowledge, a lack of confidence or a simple lack of information. In these circumstances, removing their ability to request backdating is simply a recipe for increased pensioner poverty.

The DWP's own data demonstrate that the reduction in backdating will particularly affect older pensioners—those who are 75 and older—and the Merits Committee refers to anecdotal evidence that suggests that those with certain disabilities, such as mental health impairments or communication difficulties, are more likely to have benefited from the longer backdating period. The Merits Committee states that the objective of the instrument is unclear. It goes on:

"We are not clear how this fits with the Department's overarching aim of working to end poverty in all forms".

Moreover, the committee questions the fitness for purpose of the regulations, even in pursuing the department's own narrower departmental interests. It says:

"We note that, although paragraph 8.2 of the EM"— the Explanatory Memorandum—

"accompanying the instrument states that these changes will reduce public sector administration costs for both DWP and local authorities, this is not supported by an Impact Assessment".

With the housing benefit regulations, I can at least welcome the Government's change of heart in allowing six months' backdating as against their original intention to reduce this to three. However, this is stated to be only a temporary measure before a further reduction is imposed, so this must remain a real concern. The Social Security Advisory Committee argues that housing benefit is unlike other social security benefits in that a significant number of applicants claim it only after they have become badly in arrears with their rent and are threatened with eviction. In difficult economic conditions, such as we are currently experiencing, introducing measures that many respondents to the Social Security Advisory Committee consultation predict will increase homelessness cannot possibly be justified.

The Government say that they want to avoid complacency among people in vulnerable groups but, if complacency is suspected as being the reason for a person not making a claim, then their claim for backdated housing benefit can simply be disallowed. People need to demonstrate good cause for not having claimed earlier. Very often there will be good cause, which may be related to things such as domestic violence or other traumatic life events, mental health problems, a lack of appropriate support and so on. Until we are convinced that vulnerable groups are able to access early interventions and effective advice and support services, these regulations will have serious and long-lasting consequences detrimental to the Government's poverty pledges and welfare-to-work strategies, which rely on people having security of tenure and the certainty of a home to enable them properly to engage with the system and improve their circumstances. I support the Motion calling on the Government to revoke these regulations.

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by my noble friends this evening and by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. I shall be as brief as possible. I know that the Minister will be as helpful as he can be in his response. I am particularly interested in hearing how he will monitor any adverse impact of this proposal. I am concerned about vulnerable young people under the age of 25—particularly care leavers—and I am very worried about adults with dependent children. I am also concerned about adults with drug and alcohol issues.

In this prosperous country, we had 100,000 homeless families living in temporary accommodation. We were classed by UNICEF as the most unfriendly nation in the developed world for children. This Government have significantly reduced the number of families in temporary accommodation and have taken all families out of bed and breakfast accommodation. They have brought forward many proposals and legislation for children and families. They have invested significantly in, for example, teaching and they have raised the status of teachers. I pay tribute to the Government for that work, but the question in my mind is: how is the proposal before us consistent with all those good and valuable measures that the Government have taken forward? For example, as I understand it, unless a care leaver of the age of 21 is in education, he or she is no longer eligible for further support. They may well be a parent by this time and, because of their history, may be particularly susceptible to drugs or alcohol and may be struggling to reform themselves. They may suffer from relapses over several months and live a chaotic life. How will this proposal impact on that sort of young person?

I hope that the Minister can advise me how he will monitor the impact of the regulations and how he will give guidance to local authorities on monitoring these groups—that is, young people, adults with dependent children, people experiencing difficulties with alcohol and drug misuse, and those who are in employment but on low wages and who may not become aware that they are eligible for housing benefit until they are deeply in arrears. This matter concerns me very much. I look forward to the Minister's reply, but I fear that I may have to support the noble Baroness if she decides to divide the House on this.

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I absolutely concur with him that monitoring the fruits of these regulations is essential. If the Minister could say something about that in his response, it would assist me considerably.

The House owes a considerable debt to my noble friend Lady Thomas. She has a reputation for being absolutely at the front end of all matters relating to debt advice and citizens' advice, and she works extremely hard. The sincerity with which she made her case was certainly impressive. I also think that the Merits Committee has done the House a signal service. That committee is establishing itself as a powerful tool in pinpointing things that should command the attention of a wider audience. It has done that in an exemplary way and I am deeply grateful to it for drawing these regulations to our attention and suggesting some questions with which to tax the Government. They all have merit and I hope that the Government can respond to some of them.

I also commend the Social Security Advisory Committee. An essential part of any ineffably complex benefits system requires experts to work out what is important. Had it not had the foresight and presence of mind to institute the consultation, the 75 or so responses, to which my noble friend rightly referred, would not have reached the public domain. That has enabled the debate this evening to be informed.

I do not think that beneficial change for one group should ever be at the expense of other low income, disadvantaged groups. When we boil all this down, that is what happens under these regulations. The costings in the additional Explanatory Memorandum will take some £155 million out of the pension credit costs for the department in fiscal 2008-09 and £105 million fiscal 2008-09 out of the working age budget for the department.

As my noble friend said in her introduction, this is absolutely the worst time to think about doing any such thing. It is true that the gestation of the regulations was more than a year ago—probably in the balmy summer of 2007 when things were different and the economic context was entirely more benign and beneficial. We are now on the brink of a Pre-Budget Statement when the Government are expected to reach deep into their pockets to help exactly the kind of people that these regulations affect by taking £155 million and £105 million respectively from the two groups involved. That is perverse. The left hand of government does not seem to know what the right hand is doing.

The timing of the regulations is puzzling, except to say that the department has been trying to do this for a long time—probably more than 10 years. As well as the budgetary savings, which are perverse for the reasons I have explained, one of the real reasons behind the Government being forced to introduce the regulations is the administrative burden facing the department in the current comprehensive spending round. The pressure in Jobcentre Plus, the introduction of ESA, Welfare to Work, and all those changes with a much reduced staff complement is probably one of the drivers for this. I hope not because that would be completely unjustifiable. I have no evidence for that suspicion but I suspect that it is behind the provenance of these changes.

My noble friend made powerful reference to the Government's directives. Public Service Agreements 16 and 17 are two principal policy drivers for the current 2008-11 Comprehensive Spending Review period. The first, is entitled, PSA Delivery Agreement 16: Increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and employment, education or training. The changes that the regulations introduce for the working-age population will do precisely the reverse. The second document refers to PSA Delivery Agreement 17: Tackle poverty and promote greater independence and wellbeing in later life, which is precisely what the regulations will not do. The Government are facing in the wrong direction even measured by their own policy objectives. Your Lordships' House needs to weigh that in the balance when deciding whether the regulations should be revoked.

I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who criticised the fact that there had been no independent evaluation of some of the changes. Some administrative changes are welcome in terms of the ease with which people can make applications via call centres and the integration of the work of the department and local authorities. They are welcome but there is no way of knowing that just because that has happened, they will mitigate the effect of the savings that the Government are making in the regulations. Any self-respecting Government should have had some sort of evaluation so that people could make a judgment on the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly said that this is a critical SSAC report. It is measured in everything that it does because it has a positive relationship with the department, and rightly so.

In relation to the Government's claim that this is a simplification measure, the SSAC report states on page 31 that that is "entirely unconvincing", which is a damning verdict. The SSAC does not reach such conclusions lightly. I have been reading SSAC reports since I was a boy—goodness help me—and this is one of the most critical that I have ever come across. The Government's addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum rubs salt in the wound. It retrospectively adduces the increased uprating of 4.2 per cent for pension credit and a one-off additional winter fuel payment as part of this package. We were not told that this was part of the package when we got the 4.2 per cent uprating, which admittedly is over the legal limit that the Government are obliged to introduce. But we were not told at the time that some of this would be clawed back 12 months later as part of a package of simplification measures. If that is the kind of thing we will experience in future, we should be warned that Budget changes might be clawed back as part of a retrospective package some months later.

I have another question coming from where I do. The Scottish local authority relationship with the department is not as straightforward as in England and Wales. I am not sure about Northern Ireland but I suspect that there may be some difficulties with the direct line of guidance and authority that runs from central government in Whitehall to local authorities. Some of the mitigating factors that the Government are founding on require more sensitive guidance and directions being sent to and implemented by local authorities. I have no confidence because I do not know whether that will be given effect to north of the border. Your Lordships' House should bear that in mind.

I am very concerned about the regulations. Of course simplification is a worthwhile goal. I do not believe that any of these simplification measures were ever considered as an outcome of the benefit simplification unit. We have a group of professionals in the department whose task is to come up with simplification schemes. I would bet a monkey to a mousetrap that these regulations were never anywhere near the benefit simplification unit, which gives the game away about whether this is a simplification or a cuts measure.

The good cause rules are a very effective way of targeting resources. They are not easily overcome. Indeed, many good cause claims have to go to appeal before they are allowed. Good cause as part of a backdating regime is a perfectly sensible way to proceed. A simplification with a standardised approach across the whole benefits system could be a default back-claiming of three months and would allow people to go back the full 12 months on the basis of establishing good cause. That would be a bit more expensive but it is not easy if one is the claimant. As it applies the good cause test, it guarantees that it would target the money that we are careful about spending, and rightly so.

Having said that, I welcome the temporary reprieve. The working age reprieve for another 12 months is sensible, but only because it gives us extra time. We must use that time to get the evaluation that noble Lords have called for. There is no way other than getting qualitative, quantitative or both types of research in order to drill into what that means. I do not believe that the Government will come back in a year's time, because it will be shown that these changes are so retrogressive that they will not bother, but they will quietly shelve this proposal to complete the regulations in the next 12 months. We need to get research between now and then to try to pin down what the consequences will be.

These regulations are counterproductive. They will tend to increase child poverty and homelessness, and they are more trouble than they are worth. I hope I can persuade my noble friend to press this to a Division, if she feels so minded. I shall certainty support her if she does so.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is quite right to draw the House's attention to this order as it has had the most devastating critique of any regulations issued by the Department for Work and Pensions in recent years. That is exemplified by the speeches that we have heard from all round your Lordships' House. Like others, I note that these regulations were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. These matters are often dealt with by correspondence, as the Minister well knows, but not this time. The Social Security Advisory Committee decided that it would undertake a full inquiry, citing its continuing interest in the backdating of income-related benefits, the apparent lack of reliable evidence regarding the rationale for making the changes in the first place, the unsupported costings for the new arrangements and the unprecedented number of complaints from organisations and individuals, not least those on behalf of vulnerable groups which will inevitably be affected. It also believed that these regulations are likely to go against the Government's avowed aim of reducing poverty.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, this is hardly surprising as the department made similar proposals to those in this order as long ago as 2000, which were summarily dropped following the Social Security Advisory Committee's similarly adverse comments. Yet here we are again, as the Government still maintain that the order will result in savings for the public purse and stop what they call "confusion" among claimants. They are surely right on the first point, and your Lordships' Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has provided us with some figures, which I can only say were prized out of the department by the Social Security Advisory Committee. We were told that the saving amounts to some £170 million in 2009. It is therefore incredible that the department failed to live up to the Government's own requirement that an impact assessment is required for any proposal that reduces costs by more than £5 million. Your Lordships' committee drew the conclusion that the lack of such an impact assessment must mean that the savings are going to be nothing like the £170 million that was suggested. If she will allow me to paraphrase her, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, thinks that nobody knows.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I am much more cynical. I believe that significant savings will be made, but that Ministers did not want to make that too obvious to the Social Security Advisory Committee or to Members of Parliament. That leads me to my first question: is the anticipated figure still £170 million? If so, why was no impact assessment produced? Secondly, why the apparent ageism? Why should claimants over 60 be treated any differently from those under 60? This question is relevant to claimants of housing benefit and, to a lesser extent, of council tax benefit, both of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best. SSAC has often argued that housing benefit is different from other social security benefits because a significant number of claimants pursue it only after they have got badly into arrears with their rent, maybe even to the extent of being threatened with eviction. These rent arrears often pertain for many months and are suffered by people who, almost by definition, fall into the poorest category in our society. My complaint is that from now on, pensioners will have only three months to claim, whereas those of working age will have six. Why the discrimination against pensioners?

Talking of pensions, does the Minister really consider that this discrepancy is balanced by an undoubted bonus; namely, the increase in the time that pension credit can continue if the claimant is abroad from four to 13 weeks? The Government and SSAC believe that the current period is too short. I am happy to go along with that, but why was 13 weeks chosen? It seems a thundering long time for people to be on holiday, especially as people on pensions credit are most unlikely to have much or, indeed, any other income. Being charitable, I suppose that some may have children who are happy to have them for this length of time, but I rather wonder how many of your Lordships would dump yourselves on your expatriate family for so long. I certainly would not. It is also possible that a pensioner may go abroad for medical treatment, but even with recuperation time, 13 weeks seems an excessive amount of time. I ask again, what is the magic about these 13 weeks?

As a philosophy, it stands out against the proposal for housing benefit and council tax benefit, but to me the worst horror of this order is the reduction in the time that pensioners are allowed to claim pension credit, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, majored. At the time of the worst financial crisis in living memory and with pensioner inflation running at 9 per cent, this decision means that the poorest pensioners—those who have not yet claimed pension credit—are to remain in poverty if they do not claim within three months, and pensioner poverty is increasing. The most recent figure I have is that in 2006-07, 2.1 million pensioners were living in poverty, which is an increase of 300,000 people. That was at a time when the Government were supposedly seeking to reduce pensioner poverty. The Department for Work and Pensions' agreement targets for 2005-08 said as much. It stated that by 2008, it would,

"be paying Pension Credit to at least 3.2 million pensioner households, while maintaining a focus on the most disadvantaged by ensuring that at least 2.2 million of these householders are in receipt of the Guaranteed Credit".

We know that 1.7 million pensioners are not claiming pension credit, more than half of whom are living in poverty. How close are the Government to the 2008 target? More importantly, what research have the Government done on the effect of the regulations? An up-to-date survey published in September entitled Flagship or Flagging? The Impact of Pension Credit Five Years On found that one in eight of older people had not heard of pension credit; that one in six over 80 was unaware of it; and that one in six of those nearing retirement is unaware of it. The department's impact assessment seems to agree with that. It states:

"Older pensioners are more likely to be affected by the proposed rule change. In 2006/07 older pensioners were more likely to backdate their claims than younger pensioners and were also more likely to do so for the maximum 12 months".

As I understand the figures—I am sure that the Minister will take great delight in correcting me if I am wrong—about £2.8 million is available in pension credit for the 1.8 million people who are not claiming it. If they took it up, that would lift half a million people out of poverty at a stroke, giving those currently missing out an average of £1,477 a year.

Who is to gain from that mishmash of government policy? Certainly not current pensioners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, noted most forcefully; nor those who should be getting housing benefit, council tax benefit or both, or perhaps all three of the benefits that we are discussing.

The Minister must be heartily relieved that my party still stands by the convention that prevents me praying against the statutory instrument. It is so damaging to the poorer members of our society that I am surprised that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have not done so. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, regarded this as a forceful Motion. I beg to disagree. Perhaps she will explain when she winds up. It seems to me such a vote-loser that the Government should have second or, as the proposal has already been abandoned once, third thoughts as to whether the tiny gains outweigh the undoubted damage that the regulations will do to the poorest members of our society.

Is the game worth the candle? Now is hardly the time to reduce the time limits for claiming and backdating pension credit, for example, unless of course the Government have given up on the pensioner vote.

My Lords, this has been an important debate and I acknowledge the strength of the views expressed around the Chamber. Before I get into some of the detail of the Motion, I refer to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about pensioner poverty and the Government's position on it. Frankly, we are not in the mood to take any lectures from his party on that. Our strategy since 1997 has been to target help on the poorest pensioners while providing a solid foundation of support for all. We have a good track record of reducing pensioner poverty. Since 1998, we have lifted 900,000 pensioners out of relative low income. Pensioners are now less likely to be living in poverty, as measured by relative low incomes after housing costs are accounted for, than the population as a whole.

If we had continued with the system that we inherited from the noble Lord's party, we estimate that there could have been about 1.5 million more pensioners in poverty today, and we will be spending about £12 billion more on pensioners in 2008-09 than if the 1997 system had been continued.

My Lords, if the Minister is about to leave that point, I remind him that I asked him how close to the 2008 target we now are. After all, as the Government are now claiming credit, as he just has, they must come clean about whether the target has been reached or not.

My Lords, I have given the current figures to the noble Lord. As always, they are updated in the Pre-Budget Report and Budget Statements and doubtless he will have a chance to raise those issues again at that time.

In disagreeing with the change proposed in the regulations, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made comments on the evidence to support the policy and the fact that regulations were laid during the Recess. Let me first address the issues raised on timing and consultation, and then deal with the change itself. I stress that the Government have been open and clear about the changes and given plenty of notice. The changes were announced by the then Minister for Pension Reform on 5 December last year as part of the annual uprating Statement. He made it very clear that the reduction in the backdating period for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit from 12 months to three months would be introduced from October 2008. An equality impact assessment was also carried out and published by the Department for Work and Pensions in April. This provided evidence on both the rationale for and the impact of the changes in backdating. As noble Lords will be aware, the Social Security Advisory Committee decided to consult on the regulations, and it reported back to the Secretary of State on 14 July. The Government's response to its report was laid alongside the regulations on 15 September to enable the regulations to come into force on 6 October, as originally announced. The timing therefore reflected the need to take account of and respond to consultation, but there was plenty of time for discussion and debate following the announcement in December last year.

I reject the assertion that the regulations were sneaked in under the radar. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords have said, consultation is an important part of any change, and one that we think about carefully. We held informal discussions with Age Concern and Help the Aged. Although they had reservations about the backdating changes, they both acknowledge the benefits that the wider package will bring. We also consulted local authority associations on the changes to housing benefit and council tax benefit backdating, and listened to their concerns and those of other stakeholders, which were expressed as part of the consultation exercise conducted by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

These discussions focused on concerns about working-age customers and the potential adverse impact on certain vulnerable groups. Although we believe that the maximum backdating period for working-age customers should also be three months, we have decided to introduce this change in stages, starting with a period of six months. The rationale for this revision was made clear in the Government's response, laid alongside the regulations, which also announced that we will review these revised arrangements for working-age customers at the end of 2009—a point pressed on us by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

The Government did not make changes to the backdating rules lightly; they were agreed as part of a wider package of measures aimed at improving the benefit process and reducing intrusion for pensioners. As such, we cannot consider them in isolation. The changes to backdating rules will reduce the need for customers to provide evidence and documentation for historical circumstances, including any changes over that period. They will also reduce the burden on operational staff when establishing the likely entitlement to benefit for a past period, and will help to simplify the decision-making process. The evidence makes it clear that the changes will not affect existing customers. Indeed, no customer need lose out if they claim as soon as they think they may be entitled to. We do not want people delaying making a claim and missing out on benefits to which they are entitled. The overall package of measures will make the claims process for pensioners easier.

The Government are also keen to foster a greater sense of responsibility among customers for their financial affairs. An unintended consequence of lengthy backdating periods is that they can increase the likelihood that people, particularly in the most vulnerable groups, become desensitised to their situation and avoid taking action to tackle their debts. It is therefore important that they do not delay making their claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit, regardless of the length of any backdating period, particularly when rent arrears have started to build up.

My Lords, the Minister said that these changes were being introduced to reduce intrusion into pensioners' affairs. As claiming pension credit is entirely voluntary—the pensioner claims it only if they want to be intruded into—how on earth can what he says be right?

My Lords, as a practical matter, when someone makes a claim and follows it the whole way through, they do not necessarily know in advance what the process will entail. The feedback that we have from people working in the service is that, once you get into the process, it is troublesome for people to have to dig out bank statements from 12 months ago or to be asked to justify their circumstances over that period. It is a fraught process. I remember from my days as a local councillor—the noble Lord may do, as well—that filling in forms and helping people with the assessments at surgeries is challenging. That point is real.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asserted that these changes were about saving money. I reject that, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. They are about targeting resources most effectively. Over the long term, the package results in extra expenditure for pensioners, rising to £250 million per year by 2050 in 2007-08 price terms.

We have made the claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit for pensioners more automatic. Customers will be able to claim these alongside pension credit by phone, without the need to complete or sign a claim form. We estimate that about 50,000 pensioners will benefit in the next couple of years. We are also reducing intrusion for people aged 75 or over on pension credit by removing the need for them to report most changes to their retirement income. We estimate that more than 1 million pensioners will benefit through not having to complete a review of their income and capital. We are also increasing to 13 weeks the temporary periods that people can spend abroad without losing their pension credit. I will return to that point and to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in a moment.

These changes were widely publicised, and we have taken steps to ensure that pensioners who thought that they may have been entitled for more than three months but had not claimed did so before 6 October.

We are making every effort to ensure that people are aware of and claim their entitlement as soon as they think that they may be entitled. Each week, our local service makes around 13,000 visits and we continue to write to people whom we think may be eligible for pension credit, urging them to claim. The Pension, Disability and Carers Service has joint working partnerships through the implementation stage with all 203 primary-tier local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. It provides a single point of access to social care and benefits entitlement.

We will also work with key welfare-rights organisations to ensure that working-age customers are encouraged to claim in good time and with the Department for Communities and Local Government to get the message across to landlords and tenants. On tenants, if landlords tackle rent arrears at an early stage, that will help to ensure that people who are entitled to help with their housing costs are identified and given the support to make a claim.

A number of noble Lords referred to 2000, when previous seemingly similar proposals were withdrawn. A number of important changes have taken place since 2000: namely, a rapid reclaim process for customers undertaking short periods of employment; a shortened housing benefit and council tax benefit claim form for pensioners, which omits sections that are less likely to be used for this customer group; a three-page claim form for pensioners who receive pension credit; and a combined claims process for working-age customers where the housing benefit and council tax benefit claim details are taken alongside claims for income support, jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefits. There are many more changes which I do not have time to go through in detail.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, focused on those vulnerable individuals who lead chaotic lives. The SSAC report highlighted the issues facing working-age customers, particularly those vulnerable groups. The concern is that this group may be more likely to get into arrears with housing costs, leading to possible evictions. We believe that six months will allow those customers, including those who are taken to court for rent arrears, sufficient time to apply for housing and council tax benefits backdated to cover the arrears of housing costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular focused on the possibility of evictions resulting from these changes. We believe that these changes should encourage customers to take more responsibility for their housing costs at an earlier stage and so encourage landlords and local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities to collect rent and council tax, and to take prompt action when arrears accrue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about times of bereavement. We accept that at such times contacting the DWP will not be a priority. We are taking steps to make claiming after bereavement easier. We review state pension automatically after a partner's death and a bereavement payment is made without the need for a claim form. A number of points were made about the evidence base for this policy and the data that we use. We looked at information from a wide range of sources, including departmental analysis, local authorities and a number of external stakeholders such as national and local welfare rights agencies, and housing associations.

Specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about monitoring the impact of these changes on working-age claimants. We will collect information from case studies, Citizens Advice and others. We have improved data collection from local authorities and will continue to work with them. We have asked local authorities to keep us in touch and up to date with the impact of these changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked whether the Benefit Simplification Unit approved these changes. All changes to policy and regulations are seen and approved by the unit, which has acknowledged that 12 months' backdating can cause difficulty for staff and customers. This change represents a simplification, bringing backdating rules broadly in line with other income-related benefits.

I have dealt with the issue on saving money and I will deal briefly with one point—

Not quite, my Lords. I am happy to accept the Minister's assertion that overall there will be no saving, but none the less the department eventually provided the Social Security Advisory Committee with the figure of £170 million in saving. Is that a saving in administration or for some other reason?

My Lords, the savings figure is still £170 million and the department is only required to do an impact assessment on changes that produce administrative savings of more than £5 million. The figure of £170 million represents a combined benefit and administrative costs saving. Obviously other benefit costs arise from this because of the extra support given to pensioners when they make their claims.

I shall conclude with a response to a point put by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about extending the period of temporary absence abroad to 13 weeks. The intention of this change, which had been campaigned for by Age Concern, is to allow the majority of those pension credit customers who go abroad temporarily to retain their entitlement and thus not have to go through the process of making a new claim when they return. We have no evidence to suggest that extending this period may lead to more abuse of public funds and we think the balance is about right.

In conclusion, I urge noble Lords to look at this as a package of benefits and changes to backdating. In all these matters, we have to make a judgment on where the line should be drawn, and I believe that in the circumstances we have drawn it in the most appropriate place. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her Motion.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly the four Cross-Benchers who supported my Motion. I thank also my noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I note that we had no speeches from the Government side.

Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I am not going to make a second speech, but I want to take up one matter with the Minister on his point about encouraging claimants to take responsibility at an earlier stage. Case studies show that the reason for the need for backdating is the incapacity to claim rather than irresponsibility. People do not deliberately delay making a claim or renewing their entitlement. Research undertaken by the DWP itself identifies that people are unable to claim because of what is quite often a health-related inability. They are the ones most likely to be disadvantaged by the changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, posed me a challenge when he wondered why I did not table a prayer and call a vote which would revoke the regulations, as indicated on the Annunciator. However, I knew that I was pushing my luck and I did not think he would support me in the Lobbies, although I believe that Members of my own party would have done. I thought that I would put on the Order Paper the reasons for our disquiet with these backdating rules. A prayer does not tell the story, whereas my Motion does. It is not a fatal Motion because it is not a call to revoke the regulations; rather it asks the Government to revoke them. In that respect, it is quite a gentle proposal, but the word "deplores" in the opening line reflects our strength of feeling about these regulations. On that basis, I commend this Motion and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said Motion to resolve shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 84.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.