I am grateful for that intervention as it allows me to point to the fact that in reaching decisions of this kind families doubtless sometimes have to take rather hard decisions, just as individuals must. I do not believe that the decisions which families sometimes have to take are at all different from the State-provided institutional framework within which individual old people have to decide whether to sell their homes.

On this subject, there is little that I can add to what I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 6 July. There has been a fair amount of quoting from letters, but it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman of what I said. I wrote as follows: If the applicant for Supplementary Benefit is living in his own house its value is disregarded but the value of other property is taken into account. The resident in an Old People's Home has, however, ceased to live in his former house"— that is the difference— and the Board will take its value into account in the assessment of resources. In cases where he is unlikely to return to the house and no dependant is living in it the Board may advise its sale to realise income for personal use. If the Board's advice is not accepted a debt is likely to build up. I have, however, had inquiries made over the last five years and … not one person in a statutory old people's home has been taken to court to enforce payment of a debt of this kind. Nor would one expect such an event to happen in the humane and excellent administration of old people's homes in the Province.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the whole question of charging is at present subject to a review by a working group in England, and the Department for which I have ministerial responsibility in Northern Ireland has been keeping in close touch with developments. Any changes that are recommended will be closely examined by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, because there is parity of provision between regulations throughout the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman's comments tonight will not be ignored. He correctly said that it would be better for me to reply in writing to the four questions that he posed. I shall do that, but before writing I should like to impress on him that the health and social services boards in the Province make every effort to be humane and understanding in their dealings with such cases. The general policy is—I look forward to evidence on this from the hon. Gentleman—that no pressure is put on anyone to dispose of his property. If the evidence is there, let it be forthcoming; let it be produced in writing. If a legitimate debt accumulates it would become a charge against the person's estate and would be eventually discharged when the estate is wound up after the person's death.

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in detail on the four points that he raised. I hope that he will not take it as a back-handed compliment, but I congratulate him on the constructive way in which he put forward his argument in detail. It contrasted very well with statements that he made in the Province earlier this year. For example, on 12 June 1981, it is reported in the press that he said: I accuse the Government of State theft in depriving the elderly who enter old people's homes of their property by making them sell their houses to pay for their stay in State care. That sort of comment raises totally unnecessary and unfounded fears in the minds of old people and contrasts poorly with the constructive way in which the hon. Gentleman put forward his views tonight, for which I am grateful.