Adam
Afriyie: I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in
giving way, but I just want to be absolutely clear that third party
contractors will not be required to conduct criminal record checks on
their employees, and that consideration of what is appropriate is in
their hands. That rings a few alarm bells with
me.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman can return to the discussion on
private and voluntary sector contracting and so on in the light of the
paperwork that the Government have provided. He is correct in saying
that
we will not centrally stipulate the criminal record checks to be
performed on third parties. We can return to that issue on another
occasion. The
protections provide citizens with assurances that information that may
be personal and private, which they supply to those administering
social security, will be treated in strictest confidence and will be
only be disclosed to others in limited circumstances. I have described
a triple protection mechanism. I hope that for the hon. Gentleman, who
has been listening avidly to my comments, those last few sentences
reassure him about his very real concern that started the alarm bells
ringing. With that, I encourage the Committee to agree that the clause
stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 42
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
43Recovery of overpaid benefit: Great Britain Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Adam
Afriyie: I want to make a couple of comments about the
recovery of overpayments. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey covered this territory earlier, and it is
uncontroversial to say that if an overpayment is made, it should be
recovered. However, I have two concerns. With the changes to the Social
Security Administration Act 1992, an overpayment that is due to a
banking or processing error by the local authority or whoever makes the
payment will automatically be reclaimed without a new decision
confirming that an overpayment was made. Somebody who is a couple of
hundred pounds overdrawn, who continues to spend, as most people do,
and who does not spot the overpayment will be put in a difficult
position if the money has to be returned immediately. They are already
in a difficult financial position, by virtue of the fact that they
claim those benefits. I want an explanation of how the new power to
reclaim an overpayment immediately will impact on the least well off in
society—those who claim benefits.
Mr.
Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that as more benefits
are paid automatically into bank accounts, for reasons that we have
rehearsed in other places, overpayments will become less obvious to the
claimant? For example, my winter fuel payment status has changed during
this month. I have no idea whether the Department has succeeded in
paying my wife and myself, or only myself or whatever. I shall find out
by the end of the month, and if anything is wrong, I shall rectify it.
However, I cannot do so immediately. Many people in that position may
continue to pay up until they run out of cash in their
account.
Adam
Afriyie: My hon. Friend clearly illustrates what may
happen, and I accept his point entirely. With many benefits paid into a
single bank account and with many direct debits and other demands on
people’s accounts, an immediate reclamation without a decision
on an automatic payment made to a claimant could cause great
difficulty.
The clause also says that the
Department or the paying body will be able to reclaim an overpayment
when somebody has misrepresented the information that they provided. Of
course, if somebody has deliberately misrepresented the information
that they have provided in order to obtain a short or long-term benefit
or payment, that is unacceptable and it should be dealt with
appropriately through an immediate repayment. However, will the
Minister of State assure the Committee that where someone who has
dyslexia, which many of my friends struggle with to a certain degree,
or a learning difficulty accidentally writes one wrong figure on a
form, there will be a safeguard to ensure that they will not be
immediately penalised and treated as if they had participated in a
gross misrepresentation?
Having voiced those two
concerns, which I trust the Minister of State will be able to address,
I am happy to sit
down.
6
pm
Mr.
Murphy: We are making deserved and popular progress, so I
shall not seek to delay the Committee. Clause 43 is headed,
“Recovery of overpaid benefit: Great Britain”. It might
help the Committee if I confirm that the clause seeks to codify what
already occurs in practice. No one will be affected in a material sense
by the power we are taking in the clause. The issues that the hon.
Gentleman reasonably raises as concerns are already dealt with in
practice. The clause ensures that there is no ambiguity in the
legislation about the processes for determining and recovering
overpayments of benefit when they are paid through the banking system.
Social security commissioners have said that this aspect of our
legislation is unclear, and we are taking this Bill as an opportunity
to put the matter beyond doubt.
An overpayment of this kind
can arise, for example, when a benefit payment is issued through the
banking system and a change in circumstances that reduces entitlement
is properly reported by the customer after the time that we are able to
recall the next payment, but before the payment enters the
person’s account.
The clause does not remove the
need for an award to be revised before an overpayment can be
determined, as that is retained within new section 71(5A). However, it
will enable us to review an award and then consider the recoverability
question at a later date, allowing for a more considered approach to
determining whether the overpayment is recoverable. The change follows
a similar one in 1996, and simply ensures that benefit overpayments can
continue to be dealt with as was always intended. Given the
reassurances that the clause simply codifies current practice and
removes any dubiety or lack of clarity identified by the social
security commissioners, and notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s
concerns about what already happens, I urge that the clause stand part
of the
Bill. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 43
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
45Local
authority powers to investigate benefit
fraud
Mrs.
McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 45, page 37, line 30, at
end insert— ‘(1C) An
authorisation made for a purpose mentioned in section 109A(2)(a), (c)
or (d)— (a) is subject
to such restrictions as may be
prescribed; (b) is not valid in
such circumstances as may be
prescribed.’. I
shall not detain the Committee for long, but given that the hon. Member
for Daventry alluded to this in an earlier discussion, I thought that
it would be helpful to clarify the amendment.
It might be of interest to the
Committee to hear that about half the fraud against housing benefit
also involves fraud against another national benefit. Current rules
permit local authorities to investigate fraud against housing benefit
and council tax benefit, but not to investigate fraud against any of
the national benefits administered by the DWP. The clause remedies that
and will allow local authorities to investigate fraud against national
benefits. Our
intention has always been that we will balance the powers with
safeguards. The safeguards will allow the Secretary of State to ensure
that local authorities do not misuse the powers. We have discovered a
technical problem with our ability to set out the safeguards in
regulations, and the amendment will rectify it. The safeguards will
include limiting the type of benefit offence that a local authority may
investigate, allowing particularly difficult or sensitive cases to be
withheld from local authority action, and withdrawing the powers in
case of misuse. On
the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, tackling local fraud
activity is, and will be, funded through the general administrative
subsidy. However, when we place a new burden on local authorities,
funding will be linked to the new burdens principle. I hope that that
reassures him and indicates why we need the
clause.
Mr.
Boswell: That does give reassurance, and I have no
objection to the
amendment. Amendment
agreed
to. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Adam
Afriyie: It seems that a new power is being granted to
local authorities to investigate national benefit fraud cases. My one
key concern is that it seems that the Secretary of State can ask a
local authority to conduct an investigation. Where will the budget come
from if local authorities are to conduct investigations into national
benefit
fraud?
Mrs.
McGuire: I thought that I answered that point when I
answered the comment made by the hon. Member for Daventry. However, I
shall have no problem repeating it. A local authority’s activity
to combat fraud is funded through the general administrative subsidy.
When we place a new burden
on local authorities, we will provide funding according to the new
burdens principle. I hope that that provides the clarity that the hon.
Gentleman seeks and that he will support the clause.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause
45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
46Local
authority powers to prosecute benefit
fraud
Mrs.
McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
clause 46, page 38, line 2, at
end insert ‘unless— (a) the
proceedings relate to any benefit or circumstances or any description
of benefit or circumstances which the Secretary of State prescribes for
the purposes of this paragraph,
or (b) the Secretary of State
has directed that the authority must not bring the
proceedings, and a direction
under paragraph (b) may relate to a particular authority or description
of authority or to particular proceedings or any description of
proceedings.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 70 and
71.
Mrs.
McGuire: We are tumbling quickly to a conclusion this
afternoon, Mr. Hood, and I thank you for that. During the
debate on amendment No. 68, I spoke about the need for safeguards to
prevent the misuse of local authorities’ new investigation
powers by local fraud investigators. These amendments ensure that we
have corresponding safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the new
prosecution powers introduced in clause 46.
The clause will allow local
authorities in England and Wales the power to prosecute fraud against
DWP-administered benefits, which I have already mentioned. In Scotland,
the procurator fiscal will be responsible for the prosecution of all
criminal activity. The safeguards will include limiting the type of
benefit that a local authority may prosecute and directing that
authorities may not bring proceedings in certain cases. We require that
local authorities have regard to the code for crime prosecutors when
prosecuting in cases of national benefit fraud. We would also, as I
indicated earlier, withdraw the powers in case of misuse. If the
Secretary of State withdraws the powers, he or she may continue with
any proceedings that have already been started or he or she may
discontinue them. I am pleased to move the
amendments.
Mr.
Boswell: Briefly, I do not think that there is anything
objectionable in principle here. It would be helpful if the
Under-Secretary could share with the Committee any information that she
has about anybody else who is empowered to carry out prosecutions in
relation to benefit fraud on behalf of the DWP. Are there any such
persons? Perhaps not. To extend the thought for a moment, in relation
to those who provide support under pathways to work, will she assure
the Committee that it is the Government’s
intention, at least at this stage, not to award any prosecution powers
to private sector providers and that the powers will be kept in-house
in the Department, just like the decision-making
process?
Mrs.
McGuire: I am happy to pick up on the hon.
Gentleman’s point. It might be helpful in case of
misinterpretation of the new burdens to say that the Government do not
anticipate that the clauses and Government amendments will impose any
new burdens on local authorities. They are there for the sake of
clarity, so that when central Government impose new burdens on local
authorities, there will be a principle to deal with
it. Perhaps it might
be helpful for the Committee to understand that we anticipate that the
powers will create efficiency savings. They should result in an
efficiency savings of between £450,000 and £600,000 each
year for DWP and local authorities because of the reduced need to
conduct joint investigations to comply with current legislation. As I
said when I opened this debate, about half of housing benefit frauds
are linked to other benefit frauds. It seems appropriate to link the
two, albeit with safeguards in
place. The hon.
Member for Daventry asked for a specific statement about whether other
agencies will be able to prosecute. There will be no agencies other
than local authorities and, as the Government said earlier in the
Bill’s progress, it is certainly not our intention to award such
powers to any private sector organisation. With that, I trust that the
Committee will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 70, in clause 46, page 38, leave out lines 7 to 10 and
insert— ‘(3A) The Secretary
of State may continue proceedings which have been brought by an
authority under this section as if the proceedings had been brought in
his name or he may discontinue the proceedings
if— (a) he makes
provision under subsection (2)(a), such that the authority would no
longer be entitled to bring the proceedings under this
section, (b) he gives a
direction under subsection (2)(b) in relation to the proceedings,
or (c) a condition prescribed
under subsection (3) ceases to be satisfied in relation to the
proceedings.’. No.
71, in
clause 46, page 38, line 10, at
end insert— ‘( ) In the
exercise of its power under subsection (2), a local authority must have
regard to the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of
Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act
1985— (a) in determining
whether the proceedings should be
instituted; (b) in determining
what charges should be
preferred; (c) in considering
what representations to make to a magistrates’ court about mode
of trial; (d) in determining
whether to discontinue proceedings.’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.] Clause
46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
