Welfare Reform Bill

I do not doubt that the Minister is right to say that the power should be there to make regulations concerning claims for housing benefit. However, I was rather surprised by his statement that the clause puts housing benefit back to what it is without the activities listed in the Bill. How has it come about that in a very few weeks, the Government appear to have changed their mind on the housing benefit regulations? It is unrealistic to expect claims to be immediately determined and paid without hesitation. For a variety of reasons, as the Minister set out, delays may occur, and there ought to be a mechanism to resolve difficulties in making those payments. However, when I read the government amendment, I could not make any sense of the first paragraph of proposed new subsection (1ZA). It appears to describe an impossibility and is therefore quite pointless. Proposed new paragraph (a) allows for regulations to be made to cover cases, ""where no claim has been made and it is impracticable for one to be made immediately"." I am confused. If there is no claim, how can anyone say if it can be made, let alone whether it can be made immediately? I have therefore proposed Amendment 133A, which amends government Amendment 133. It effectively rewrites proposed new paragraph (a) to state that, "where it is impracticable for a claim to be made immediately", regulations to cover payment on account of housing benefit shall be used. I expect that the Minister has had crack teams of civil servants and draftsmen working through the night to explain why the government amendment makes perfect sense and mine makes none at all. As this is a drafting point, I will listen with interest and I am sure that all will become clear, even if, as one Private Secretary in the department—alas, she has now left the room—said to me some years ago, it has the draftsmen spitting blood. I beg to move.