---

Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008

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.