Welfare Reform Bill

In which case, the Minister did oversell it, at least to me. I am glad he has backed off from that because it clarifies the situation. However, it makes the situation worse because I do not believe he will resolve these problems on housing until further analyses and further policy decisions have been taken on the housing market. However, he rejects that. It was not clear whether he was leaving open at least a possibility for one of the other points in these amendments: having, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, the assessment dealt with at a local level even though the payment may be centralised. That would seem a sensible provision. However, if you remove almost entirely the local assessment, the face-to-face and the help with IT, it will be another potential flaw in the process. I thank the Minister for the proposed IT seminar. I was not entirely clear whether it will be a private briefing for noble Lords or a side step in the consideration of the Bill. Many organisations are, of course, extremely interested in how we are going to set up the IT system, and I do not know whether it is an open meeting or whether, at least, its proceedings could be provided to the wider world. Speaking only for myself, I may not be sufficiently IT literate to understand everything the Minister will say on that occasion but others might. It would be useful if those who have an interest in this field can also, either at the meeting or after the meeting, participate in those discussions. Clarification of that would be helpful. For the moment, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment 48A withdrawn. Amendment 48B not moved. Amendment 48C Tabled by