---

Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 

I would be delighted to tell the noble Lord the number, so I shall write to him; I do not have it to hand. I was asked about the review decisions being made by a different person from the person who made the original determination. It will be good practice for officials making decisions to be able to review them. That will enable officials to learn from their own practice and make better decisions for the future. The safeguard is that there will be a further independent appeals process, to which a dissatisfied individual will have further recourse. In that sense, we certainly think that the rights of such individuals will be protected. The £16-million cost of the administration concerned with the fund has to be used to set up a new unit; commission, build and run a new IT system; and employ staff to assess what are complex issues surrounding hundreds of schemes in varying stages of wind-up. The expectation is that costs will reduce after the first few years, but there is a bit of a trade-off between the noble Lord’s concern about the date of payment and ensuring that we have the correct and effective admin systems in place. In this incredibly sensitive area, it is important that we get the administration right. The cost is justified. On Question, Motion agreed to. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations 2005.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.