Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Eighth Report


The Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee has agreed to the following Report:



1. On 17 December 2001 the Government laid before Parliament the proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Carer's Allowance) Order 2002 in the form of a draft of the Order and an explanatory statement from the Department of Work and Pensions.[1] The purpose of the proposed Regulatory Reform Order is to give effect to part of a package of measures announced by the Government in the autumn of 2000 to enhance social security provision for carers of severely disabled people, and to remove some inconsistencies in that provision.[2]

2. The House has instructed us to examine the proposal against the criteria specified in Standing Order No. 141(6) and then, in the light of that examination, to report whether the Government should proceed, whether amendments should be made, or whether the Order should not be made.[3]

3. The proposals are intended (i) to remove the current restrictions on persons aged 65 or over claiming Invalid Care Allowance for the first time, and to remove other inconsistencies in the treatment of carers or former carers over that age; (ii) to allow payment of the allowance to continue for up to eight weeks following the death of the person being cared for; and (iii) to change the name of the allowance (to "Carers' Allowance") in order to remove the alleged negative connotations of the existing title. The proposals are expected to cost about £37 million per year.

4. The main thrust of the proposals has been unanimously welcomed by respondents to the departmental consultation, although there was some disquiet about the treatment of a small group of potential over-65 carers, and about the transitional protection proposed. In the light of these latter concerns we sought further advice from the Department[4] and took oral evidence from departmental officials on Tuesday 5 March.[5]

5. We have concluded that the proposal should be amended before a draft Order is laid before the House. The amendments which we propose are, however, of a minor drafting nature only. We have also given careful consideration toa number of suggestions included to provide transitional protection for a very small group of older carers who would otherwise lose potential entitlement to a benefit currently available to carers reaching the age of 65. We have reluctantly concluded that no workable scheme could be devised which would not have potentially adverse effects on other groups, and we have therefore been unable to support these proposals. We have been generally satisfied with the information provided by the Department of Work and Pensions and by the consultation which they undertook before the proposal was laid - with one important exception, concerning the Social Security Advisory Committee, in respect of which the consultation process appears to have operated most unsatisfactorily. Our detailed comments on this and other matters arising from our consideration of the criteria specified in the Standing Order are contained in the remainder of the Report.

Purpose of the proposed Order

Current entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

6. Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) was first introduced in 1976, and is currently authorised by section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). It is a non-contributory, non-means-tested benefit payable to claimants who are caring for severely disabled people (defined mainly as those entitled to attendance allowance or to the care component of disability living allowance at the highest or middle rate) and who in consequence are unable to undertake paid employment[6]. Under current legislation:

    (i)  carers must be over the age of 16 and under the age of 65 when they claim entitlement to the allowance; but, conversely, existing claimants may continue to receive the benefit or retain their entitlement to the benefit after the age of 65[7] even if they are no longer actually caring for a disabled person (as a result of death or any other cause); and

    (ii)  carers under the age of 65 lose entitlement to the benefit immediately on the death of the disabled person or if their caring role ceases for any other reasons (such as the hospitalisation of the disabled person).

7. The position is further complicated by the fact that many carers, including many over 65 who continue to be entitled to ICA under the existing rules, do not actually receive it, as a result of the operation of the "overlapping benefit rules". These[8] prevent the payment of a benefit when the specific need is already being met, usually by another benefit: as a result, only someone with no State Retirement Pension or with a Pension which is less than the rate of ICA will actually receive payment of all or part of ICA itself. Entitlement to the allowance - even where it is not actually paid as a result of these rules - is nonetheless important, since it also establishes a right to claim a "Carer Premium" in respect of income-related benefits such as Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. The Carer Premium was increased in April 2001 from £14.20 to £24.40. The current rate of the full Invalid Care Allowance is £41.75.

Proposed changes to entitlement

8. Changes relating to the age limit for ICA claims: The proposed Order would (in article 3(2)) make two changes relating to the current age 65 threshold:

9. The draft Order nonetheless contains a transitional provision (in article 4) to allow those already over 65 at the commencement date of the Order, and already entitled to ICA under the section 70(6) concession, to continue to be so entitled for an indefinite period, even if they are no longer caring for a disabled person.

10. Continuation of entitlement after death of the person cared for: The draft Order (in article 3(1)) would introduce a new subsection (1A) to section 70 of the 1992 Act, providing that entitlement to the care allowance may continue for a period of eight weeks beginning with the Sunday following the death of the disabled person, although that extended entitlement would cease if he were to take up gainful employment during the period.

Change of name of the allowance

11. Finally, the proposed Order would change the name of the benefit from Invalid Care Allowance to "Carers' Allowance", and would make consequential amendments to this effect to the 1992 Act and other relevant legislation.


12. We are satisfied that the proposal is appropriate for delegated legislation by this route. We note that a small number of respondents to the consultation exercise regarded Regulatory Reform procedure as providing insufficient parliamentary scrutiny, and felt that primary legislation through the public bill procedure would have been preferable. We suspect that this concern arises from a limited awareness of the scope of the procedure, and we believe that proposals of this kind would in practice receive less scrutiny if considered in the context of a wider Bill. Moreover, that route would undoubtedly delay implementation of what appear to be widely acceptable improvements to this part of the benefits system, even if to some they do not go far enough.


13. A consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals was issued on 23 July 2001. The consultation period ended on 15 October, although the Department for Work and Pensions in practice considered some later responses.

14. The consultation document was issued to more than 120 organisations including those known to have a direct or indirect interest in carer issues. It was also posted on a number of different Government websites. Only forty responses in all were received, half of these being from individuals or organisations not included in the original distribution list who were presumably alerted either by third parties or through one of the websites: this suggests that the websites may well be an effective means of contacting potential respondents, and a practice to be encouraged.[10]

15. Responses received through this exercise were universally supportive of the extension of claiming rights to the over-65s and the payment of the allowance for eight weeks after the death of the disabled person, as well as the proposed new title for the allowance. A number of respondents nonetheless qualified their support in various ways.

16. In particular, concern was specifically expressed by fourteen of the respondent groups about the effects on a small number of long-term carers (thought mainly to be women) who had not been able to build up sufficient contributions to gain access to an adequate state pension, and who might potentially suffer from the withdrawal of the current concession for carers reaching the age of 65. Although some of these (such as Mencap) were in effect opposing the withdrawal of this concession, others (such as Carers UK) recognised that protection for this potentially very small group would be better provided not by maintaining the concession but by offering some alternative route, such as "passporting" such carers on to a Category D pension. A number of other respondents welcomed the eight week extension of benefit, but argued that it should be considerably longer or that it should (as in the case of Carer Premium) apply also where the caring role ceases in circumstances other than the death of the cared-for person (such as hospitalisation). Many also recorded their dissatisfaction with operation of the "overlapping benefit rules"[11], but since these have been a feature of the social security system since 1948 their removal or amendment would clearly go far beyond the scope of the current proposed Order.

17. The Department's response to the points raised in the consultation is summarised in paragraphs 94 to 101 of the Explanatory Statement, and set out considerable detail in Annex B to the Statement. Although the Department has felt unable to accept any of the more generous proposals made by respondents, our initial conclusion was that, overall, the Department's consultation trawl had been thorough, and its treatment of the responses had been careful and responsible, appearing to reflect a constructive relationship with its regular clientele.

18. Consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee: Our attention was subsequently drawn to the fact that no response to the consultation exercise had been received from the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee (the SSAC). When questioned about this the Department confirmed that the SSAC had been "included in the consultation process on the Order" but had not commented on the proposals at that stage.[12] Subsequent inquiries revealed that the SSAC had been consulted informally by means of an e-mail which, as a result of a communications failure, had not been picked up.

19. We have subsequently sought, and received, advice from the SSAC.[13] Like other respondents they are generally supportive of the main proposals in the draft Order. They also, however, comment on the potentially adverse effects on current carers under 65 who may have had a "reasonable expectation" of being able to enjoy the current concession for over-65 carers, and recommend some additional transitional protection to meet these cases; and the SSAC suggest that the qualifications to the proposed extension of benefit for eight weeks after the death of the disabled person (which have the effect of ending the benefit if the carer returns to paid employment or full-time education) should not be proceeded with. We consider these specific points in the appropriate sections of the Report below.

20. Our main concern so far as the Social Security Advisory Committee is concerned is that, as a statutory body with responsibility to advise in this area, its advice should have been actively sought by the Department of Work and Pensions at all stages in this exercise, and its accidental failure to respond to an e-mailed inquiry should have been followed up. In their response to us on this point[14] the Department says that "Section 172 of the [Social Security] Administration Act 1992 requires the Secretary of State to refer regulations being made under relevant enactments to SSAC. The relevant enactments are listed in section 170 of that Act and do not include the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, so referral of the draft order is not required." Irrespective of the Department's own interpretation of the law in this regard, it seems to us a fairly extraordinary and unhelpful approach for the Department to adopt, particularly so since the Department go on to suggest that any subsequent regulations made as a result of the enactment of the Regulatory Reform Order itself would be referred to the SSAC. It is particularly serious in this case since it is possible that, if the SSAC's advice had been provided earlier, it might have persuaded Ministers seriously to re-examine the points which such a statutory body had raised.

21. Furthermore, and, from our point of view, more importantly, the Department has ignored the consultation requirements imposed by the Regulatory Reform Act itself. Before making an Order, and therefore before laying his proposals before Parliament, the Minister is required by Section 5(1) of the 2001 Act not only to -

    "(a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals" but also to

    "(e) consult such other persons as he considers appropriate."

It is simply not credible to argue that the SSAC is not an appropriate body to consult on the amendment of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (particularly since that Act is one of those listed in s170 of the Social Security Administration Act (see above)). It is our firmly held view that the Department of Work and Pensions should have formally consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee in this case, in pursuance of the requirements of section 5(1)(e) of the 2001 Act. We draw the attention of this conclusion to all other Government Departments who are engaged in or are contemplating the preparation of Regulatory Reform proposals, and make clear now that a further failure of this kind could lead us to conclude that the consultation exercise as a whole had not met the requirements of the Act or of our own Standing Order.[15]

Removal or Reduction of Burdens

22. The two substantive parts of the proposal (relating to the age 65 cut-off and the continuation of the allowance after the death of the cared-for person) clearly reduce or remove burdens. As summarised by the Department:

23. The Department suggest, in addition, that the third provision, to change the name of the benefit, would also remove "the social burden of the negative connotations associated with the existing name of the benefit and the lack of recognition that the name gives to carers in their own right".[16] Although they are supported in this view by most respondents to the consultation exercise, we doubt whether it is necessary to justify this provision on these grounds, and are concerned that it may stretch the definition of "burden" somewhat further than we at least had anticipated. Instead, we are ready to accept the provision as being consequential on the second proposed change, which by extending entitlement to the allowance in all cases beyond the death of the cared-for person goes some way towards uncoupling the allowance from the "invalid" and more clearly establishing that the allowance belongs to the carer. It is also, we suggest, justified as a small measure to remove inconsistencies and anomalies, since the term "invalid" has generally otherwise been removed from legislation and other official documents in recent years.

Removal of Inconsistencies

24. We are satisfied that the proposal would remove or reduce a number of inconsistencies and anomalies in existing provision for the support of carers. In addition to the name change (referred to above), two areas of inconsistency are addressed, if not eliminated entirely.

25. Current legislation, which prevents new carers over the age of 65 from claiming ICA or entitlement to ICA, ignores the fact that caring can begin at any age. The underlying thinking at the time when the allowance was introduced was no doubt that the allowance was primarily a form of compensation for those of working age who were unable, because of their caring role, to undertake paid employment, and that it was therefore less justified in the case of those theoretically beyond the normal working age. But from the start it was possible for a person already entitled to ICA to continue that entitlement beyond 65, so the argument was a relatively weak one from the start. Moreover, the currently existing over-65 "concession" (allowing entitlement to continue indefinitely even when the caring role has ceased) further compounds the anomaly: we therefore accept in principle the Department's contention that it is "no longer appropriate that a carer over 65 is unable to have access to ICA even though they fulfil all the qualifying criteria whilst another can continue to have entitlement to the benefit even though they are no longer caring simply because they established entitlement before reaching age 65."[17] We, like others, nonetheless have concerns about the possible unfairness to or lack of protection for some of those who might be affected by the withdrawal of the concession, to which we return under the appropriate headings.

26. Second, the proposal to extend entitlement to the allowance for an eight-week period beyond the death of the disabled person goes some way towards removing the inconsistencies which currently exist between ICA and the Carer Premium (which goes to those with ICA entitlement but whose other financial circumstances are different), but not, as the Department occasionally imply,[18] so far as to remove the inconsistency altogether. Carer Premium is continued for up to eight weeks if the caring role ends for any reason, and not only on grounds of death. A number of respondents have drawn attention to what will be a continuing discrepancy between the two forms of the allowance, and we are somewhat surprised that the Department have not felt able to take the further step of establishing complete consistency between the two. However, the total removal of inconsistencies will require more than a simple Regulatory Reform Order to achieve, and it is undoubtedly a positive move in the right direction.

Imposition of Burdens/Proportionality

27. The Regulatory Reform Act requires that where a burden is created or re-enacted, it must be proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result. The current proposal will impose additional administrative costs as the result of the proposed change of name of the allowance and the administration of additional claims from those over 65. We have no doubt that these obligations on the State are proportionate to the considerable benefit which is expected to result for many carers (as a result of the eight-week extension) and for those carers over 65 (now and in the future) who will for the first time be entitled to claim; but these are not "burdens" in the meaning of the Act.

28. More controversially, it might be argued that the removal of the concession under section 70(6) of the 1992 Act, which allows the continuation of entitlement for over-65 carers even after their caring role ceases, would itself constitute the imposition of a burden on those carers currently under 65 who might have reasonably expected to be able to enjoy the concession when they too crossed the age threshold. The issue of the withdrawal of this concession engages the other more difficult criteria which we are required to consider - those of fair balance, rights and freedoms, necessary protection, and ultimately of the overall desirability of the package - and we discuss it further in relation to all those criteria below. However, we find it hard to accept the view that the removal by Parliament of an entitlement which a person currently does not enjoy, but might enjoy in the future, can be regarded as imposing an actual burden on the person concerned. Insofar as the proposal may be thought to impose any burdens, we conclude that the criterion of proportionality is met.

Necessary protection/Rights and freedoms/Fair balance

29. In their Explanatory Statement the Department go to considerable lengths to give detailed explanations of the overall impact of the proposals taken as a whole, and they have been similarly helpful in responding to our requests for further elucidation. It is a difficult and rather thankless task: the Government's main objective (following increases last year in both the ICA earnings limit and the rate of Carer Premium) appears to have been to meet some of the most long-standing demands of the carer groups and other lobbies[19] for the equal treatment of carers, irrespective of age, and for a more civilised and considerate treatment of all carers at the very painful point when, as a result of death, the caring function has to come to a sudden end. In doing so, they have obviously been mindful of the need to avoid creating new inconsistencies and anomalies while trying to remove others, and the Department's officials have clearly taken this objective very much to heart: in the process that has involved resisting some of the many other suggestions of the groups which might in themselves appear desirable but which might incidentally contribute further to the already daunting complexity of the social security rules. We have some sympathy with them in doing so, partly because it is akin to squaring the circle, and partly since this Committee would have been quick to challenge them (as has happened in the case of some earlier Deregulation Orders[20]) if the result of the proposal as a whole would have been to create more anomalies and inconsistencies than were eliminated.

30. The removal of the concession for over-65 carers is a particularly vexed area. It was originally intended in 1976, in the Department's words, "to act as a quasi non-contributory retirement pension for those carers without the necessary paid contributions from employment".[21] In its present form the provision compounds further a situation already confused by the parallel existence of Carer Premium, and perpetuates a considerable degree of unfairness. And it is accompanied by the particular unfairness that any person who takes on a caring role after they have reached the age of 65 has no entitlement whatever to either form of benefit; while any person who is a carer prior to reaching the age of 65 may continue to receive ICA[22] indefinitely even if the caring role were to cease the day after the 65th birthday.

31. In order to ensure that the rights of existing beneficiaries from the over-65 concession are protected, and that no additional burden falls on them, the proposal already contains transitional provisions to the effect that those carers entitled to receive ICA who have reached their 65th birthday before the planned commencement date (28 October 2002) will continue to be so entitled, irrespective of whether they continue in a caring role. The proposal therefore ensures that this group will continue to enjoy their existing rights and expectations to enjoy the benefits of the concession.

32. The main concern of the carer groups and others therefore centres on those who have not yet reached the age of 65 but may regard themselves, or be regarded, as having a "reasonable expectation" of being able to enjoy the concession when they reach age 65 (irrespective of whether the removal of the concession is more controversially regarded as the imposition of a burden - a view which we do not endorse[23]). The Department has gone to some pains to explain the extent to which those now and in the future reaching 65 will be covered by other forms of State support.[24] So far as the great majority of long-term carers are concerned the most significant development which accompanied the introduction of ICA in 1976 was the parallel introduction of National Insurance credits: as a result of this, most carers now reaching retirement age will have had the chance to acquire sufficient credits towards a State retirement pension. Those who have failed to secure a full pension will in contemporary circumstances be protected by income-related benefits such as the Minimum Income Guarantee which of course did not exist when the allowance was introduced, and in the future new developments (such as the State Second Pension) are likely to offer even greater protection.

33. Most respondents to the consultation exercise recognise that as a result of these and other changes in social security provision the position of most future over-65 former carers will be reasonably protected without the need for the continuation of ICA (or its re-named successor) when the caring role ceases: for the most part therefore they also accept the logic of withdrawing the over-65 concession. Doubts remain, however, about a very small group of currently under-65 long-term carers who for a variety of reasons (but notably a pattern of intermittent caring, and therefore only intermittent credits) have failed to qualify for a full state pension. In view of the concern expressed on this point by key groups (such as Carers UK, Contact a Family, and Mencap) we have also been concerned to pursue the issue, and for this reason called both for more written information and, finally, for oral evidence from the Department.

34. As is clear from the Department's written response to our inquiries[25] it is extremely difficult to identify precisely who will in future fall into this potentially unprotected category, and what the numbers concerned will be. The Department's best estimate of "the numbers of people turning 65 who would lose entitlement to ICA and/or CP under the proposals is around 230 to 240 a year, or 5%", and it should be further noted that if the more recent developments in social security protection referred to above are biting properly this proportion is likely to decline further. The Department's paper offers some examples of the possible consequences for this small group, with a possible loss of income in some cases of £24.40, bringing the individuals concerned down to the Minimum Income Guarantee level of £92.15.[26]

35. A variety of suggestions have been made to overcome the problem for the potentially tiny, and declining, group of long-term carers involved. Some, such as Carers UK, have suggested that the problem could be solved by "fast-tracking" the individuals concerned to a Category D pension (normally reached only at age 80) or back-dating the State Second Pension in these cases. These are interesting proposals, and we have no doubt that pressure will continue to be applied on the Chancellor and other Ministers to consider them: but they clearly lie outwith the scope of the proposed Regulatory Reform Order. Others have suggested that the existing concession should be continued, but only in the case of carers reaching a later threshold (such as 70). And others, such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, have suggested that the transitional arrangements should be extended back to younger existing carers (the SSAC suggest those currently over 45) who would then be allowed to benefit from the concession if they were still in a caring role at the age 65 threshold.

36. The latter proposal in particular has its attractions. But all these schemes, however well intentioned, would create further anomalies and inconsistencies - and straightforward unfairness. It is primarily for this reason that the Department has resisted these alternatives, and on balance we are reluctantly persuaded that they are right to do so. We accept, therefore, that reasonable (but far from generous) protection will be provided under the now-existing social security provisions to provide at least the officially guaranteed income represented by MIG, and note that of course individuals in this situation will also be entitled to a range of other income-related benefits.

37. Overall therefore there is a difficult judgement to make in relation to the criteria which we are required to address in this group. On balance we believe that the very substantial new benefits offered by this package to the great majority of current and future carers does in the end justify the potential disadvantage to the very small number of individuals who may be adversely affected: sufficient, if not generous, protection is available to this group. We are encouraged in this view by the conclusion of the main carer group, Carers UK, that "On balance, the three measures being proposed represent a fair balance which is being struck between the interests of the person being affected by the Regulatory Reform Order and the interests of the wider public".[27]

38. We are agreed (albeit after some considerable deliberation) that necessary protection remains for those affected by the current proposal; that a fair balance is struck between the public interest and interests of persons affected; and that no existing rights and freedoms are threatened by the proposal. We also conclude that the test of desirability, under section 3(2)(b)of the 2001 Act, is met in this case.

Information and Publicity

39. In view of the significant changes which the proposed Order will bring about, we agree with a number of respondents to the consultation exercise that a major initiative needs to be taken by the Department of Work and Pensions both to advertise the changes and to actively encourage a greater take-up of the allowance or premium. Similarly steps need to be taken at an early stage to make carers aware of the changed circumstances which they may face, and actively to encourage them to take up all benefits to which they may be entitled. One of the respondents (the Contact a Family group) sensibly suggest that the change of name, as well as the change of rules, would be an ideal opportunity to "relaunch" the Carers' Allowance and to emphasise its very positive benefits. We agree with this, but also believe that the Department should be prepared actively to engage with the relatively small number of individuals concerned (and particularly those who may be potential losers from the changes) to ensure that they are aware of their claimant rights and that they do actually make their claims. It is not enough for the Department to say that this group have access to benefits — procedures should be put in place to identify and target the individuals concerned, and this should include a campaign of active home visits where appropriate.

Financial Impact

40. The costs and savings resulting from the implementation of the proposed Order are set out in reasonable detail in the Department's Explanatory Statement[28]. One-off costs of about £1.75 million will be involved in effecting the change of name of the allowance and in targeted advertising. The additional annual costs of extending the right to claim the allowance over the age of 65 are estimated at about £35 million, and the cost of providing the eight-week extension after the death of the cared-for person at about £2 million.


41. During earlier exchanges with the Department of Work and Pensions we suggested two small drafting changes which our legal advisers believe should be made to the draft Order. They are:

The Department have accepted these drafting changes as either desirable or acceptable, and have agreed to implement them,[29] and we formally recommend that they be included in the draft Order subsequently laid before the House.

Report under Standing Order No. 141

42. We recommend that the proposal be amended to meet the drafting changes referred to in paragraph 41 of this Report before a draft Order is laid before the House. We are otherwise content that the substantive provisions in the draft Order should be proceeded with.

1   Copies are available to members from the Vote Office and to members of the public from the Department of Work and Pensions. It is also available on the Cabinet Office website proposals.htm. Back

2   The package is described in more detail in the Department's Explanatory Statement, paras 2-7.  Back

3   Standing Order No. 141(2). Back

4   Appendices 2 and 4. Back

5   This evidence is reproduced on pages Ev 1-6. Back

6   As with some other allowances there is a maximum limit on earnings (increased from £50 to £72 per week in April 2001). Back

7   In the legislation (section 70(6) and (10) of the 1992 Act) this provision applied at "retiring age", which was defined as "70 in the case of a man and 65 in the case of a woman"; as a result of subsequent court rulings the provision was standardised to apply at 65 in the case of both men and women. Back

8   The overlapping benefit rules are explained in more detail in the Department's Explanatory Statement, paras 15-16. Back

9   The relevant regulation currently in force is Regulation 11 of the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Regulations 1976 (S.I.1976/409). Back

10   A full list of those consulted can be found at Annex A of the Department's explanatory statement, and of those who responded at Annex B, which also provides a detailed summary of the responses. Back

11   See para 7 above. Back

12   Appendix 2, para 15. Back

13   Appendix 3. Back

14   Appendix 2, para 15. Back

15   Standing Order No. 141(6)(A). Back

16   Explanatory Statement, paras 26, 32. Back

17   Explanatory Statement, para 35. Back

18   Explanatory Statement, para 34, and in reply to a number of respondents, such as the Disability Alliance (pp 47-48). Back

19   See Explanatory Statement, paras 5-6. Back

20   Eg Deregulation Committee, Fourth Report (The Final Deregulation Proposals), Session 2000-01 (HC 450), paras 48-49. Back

21   Appendix 2 (Department's letter of 8 February). Back

22   Entitlement to Carer Premium in these circumstances is more limited. Back

23   See para 28 above. Back

24   Eg Explanatory Statement, pp 39-40, 61-63. Back

25   Appendix 2. Back

26   We note that if the actual number estimated (233) were to come into the frame each year the total cost to the State at current rates of Care Premium would be no more than about £300,000 per year. Back

27   Explanatory Statement, p 32. Back

28   Paras 78-81. Back

29   Appendix 2, para 14. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 15 March 2002