Ann
McKechin: I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 19, page
26, line 46, after ‘sentenced)’ insert
‘or in the case mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) the date
of the order for absolute discharge’. This
amendment is consequential upon amendment
96.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 96 to
98.
Ann
McKechin: The amendments are intended to ensure that we
can apply the new provision to all those who are found guilty of
benefit fraud, including cases which result in an absolute discharge.
The underlying principle of the new sanction is that all those who
commit benefit fraud should be subject to the sanction. Absolute
discharge means that the court is satisfied that the offender is
guilty, but decides not to impose any type of sentence. We see no
reason why such guilty offenders should escape the
sanction. Although
relatively few cases receive an absolute discharge, we believe that it
would be wrong to exclude them from the sanction, especially as those
who receive a caution or administrative penalty for low-level benefit
fraud as an alternative to prosecution will be
sanctioned. We
also want absolute discharges to count for our existing two-strikes
sanction in section 7 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. It would
be inconsistent to apply the sanction to someone who receives an
absolute discharge for a first offence, but not to apply it to those
who are absolutely discharged for a second
offence. Amendment
98 corrects an error in paragraph 6(3)(b) of schedule 4 to the Bill.
That paragraph amends section 11 of the 2001 Act in
consequence of the new provisions introduced by clause 19, which
provides for loss of benefit if a person commits a benefit
offence. Section
11 of the 2001 Act sets out when the affirmative procedure applies to
regulations under the Act. The amendment ensures that the affirmative
procedure applies to regulations made under proposed new section 6B(6)
inserted by clause 19. The proposed new section
allows,
where the sanctionable benefit is income support, for regulations to
prescribe the manner in which the offender’s entitlement to
income support may be reduced. The Government consider it appropriate
for the affirmative procedure to apply to regulations made under the
power. This will bring the position in line with regulations under
subsections (7) to (10) of proposed new section 6B, which
deals with reduction in other types of
benefits. Mr.
Clappison: I seek reassurance from the Minister on one
point. I do not think that this will take terribly long. My concern is
that the provisions should operate independently from the criminal
justice system. I anticipate that that will be the case, because it is
already the case when someone is convicted of two offences and is made
subject to this particular form of sanction. That provision operates
independently of the criminal justice system, and I understand that the
same will apply in these circumstances.
Let me
explain further, so that the Minister fully understands my concern. All
benefit fraud offences are serious, but the degree of seriousness
varies, and the public accept that. It is important that the courts
consider the circumstances and seriousness of individual cases, and
that they judge and pass sentence accordingly. The public are
especially concerned by cases in which people have received large sums
of money over a long period to subsidise a high lifestyle, and who
might already have been receiving other income so that the benefits
that they have wrongly received have been a top-up. In some such
cases—we know that they exist—the people concerned have
lived a high, if not luxurious, lifestyle. I expect that those are the
cases that the public want to be judged most seriously, and for which
they would want people to receive combined punishments. That is our
concern, but we recognise that the seriousness of cases varies and that
they have to be judged accordingly.
We are
particularly concerned about the people at the higher end of the scale.
I am amazed that, notwithstanding the warnings that the Liberal
Democrats have been given about the effect of their amendment, they
would entitle such a person, in theory, to have their lawyers go back
over the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding that they have been
convicted of an offence or made subject to an administrative penalty or
caution, to see if there had been any administrative mistake, and then
to come back before the courts to get back the money that they had
wrongly received—however many thousands of pounds it
was—with compensation on top. I do not want to put this too
strongly, but some would call that a cheat’s charter coming from
the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Rochdale has been fully
warned about this problem, and I am sure that his constituents will
take a view on this issue. Many of them will feel, as we do, that
people in particularly serious cases, who have got away with large sums
of money, should receive combined punishments. I look to the Minister
for confirmation that the provisions are quite independent of the
criminal justice
system.
Paul
Rowen: If anyone is living in “Alice in
Wonderland”, it is the hon. Member for Hertsmere. I have not
said that anyone who is convicted of a benefit offence should not
receive sanctions. I have made clear our view that compensation should
be payable if the provisions have been administered incorrectly. The
hon. Gentleman should concentrate on what the amendment says, and what
is proposed, rather than imagining cases that do not exist.
Ann
McKechin: I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Member for
Hertsmere that the system is completely separate from the criminal
justice system. He is absolutely right that we must all take benefit
fraud seriously. The level of fraud across all benefits is down by more
than two thirds from that in 2001. At 0.6 per cent. of expenditure, it
is at the lowest level ever recorded, but we certainly are not being
complacent. There is absolutely no excuse for fraud, and I do not
consider that the hon. Member for Rochdale has grasped that fraud is
not excusable in any circumstances. The taxpayer certainly should not,
in any circumstances, end up paying back compensation to someone who
has attempted to defraud the Department for Work and Pensions. I
therefore ask hon. Members to support the
amendments. Amendment
95 agreed
to. Amendment
made: 96, in
clause 19, page 26, line 47, leave
out from second ‘to’ to end of line 49 and
insert— ‘(i) a conviction in
relation to which the court makes an order for absolute or conditional
discharge or a court in Scotland makes a probation
order, (ii) an order for
absolute discharge made by a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland
under section 246(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
without proceeding to a conviction,
and (iii)
’.—(Ann
McKechin.) This amendment ensures
that new section 6B of the 2001 Act applies where a person is convicted
of a benefit offence, but the court makes an order for absolute
discharge. See also amendment
97. Clause
19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4Loss
of benefit provisions: further
amendments Amendments
made: 97, in
schedule 4, page 84, line 15, at
end insert— ‘( ) In
subsection (9)— (a) in
paragraph (a), after “sentenced)” insert “or in
the case mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) the date of the order for
absolute discharge”,
and (b) for paragraph (b)
substitute— “(b)
references to a conviction include references
to— (i) a conviction in
relation to which the court makes an order for absolute or conditional
discharge or a court in Scotland makes a probation
order, (ii) an order for
absolute discharge made by a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland
under section 246(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
without proceeding to a conviction,
and (iii) a conviction in
Northern
Ireland.”.’. This amends
section 7 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 so as to ensure that
its provisions apply where a person is convicted of a benefit offence,
but the court makes an order for absolute discharge. See
also amendments 96 and 96.
Amendment 98,
in
schedule 4, page 86, line 35, leave
out ‘6B(7)’ and insert
‘6B(6)’.—(Ann
McKechin.) This amendment
ensures that the affirmative Parliamentary procedure applies to the
regulation-making power in new section 6B(6) of the Social Security
Fraud Act 2001 (inserted by clause 19). The existing reference to new
section 6B(7) is incorrect.
Schedule
4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
21State
pension credit: pilot
schemes
Paul
Rowen: I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 21,
page 30, line 16, after
‘credit’, insert ‘and Carer
Addition.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 61, in
clause 21, page 30, line 18, after
‘credit’, insert ‘and Carer
Addition.’.
Paul
Rowen: The clause deals with state pension credit, and we
welcome its provisions, which introduce the possibility of pilot
schemes of up to two years to increase the uptake of pension credit.
The clause allows regulations to be made, permitting the payment of a
state pension credit without a claim being made, and with modified
rules concerning how the entitlement is to be determined. The success
of such pilots will be judged on whether there is an increase in
individuals claiming and receiving state pension credit. The pilots
will last for up to 36 months.
The benefit,
which was introduced to raise people above the poverty line, is failing
due to a lack of uptake. It has increased, but after many years
confusion about the pension system remains, and that is exacerbated by
the complex bureaucratic forms that pensioners must fill out, and the
means-testing to which pensioners are subject, in order to receive
their benefits. The system does not deal with the needs of pensioners,
as half of people over 65 years old do not like or seek financial
advice. Indeed, Citizens Advice figures for 2006-07 showed that only 10
per cent. of its clients were over 65—half the percentage of
pensioners over that age as a proportion of the total population.
Without essential advice, those who need pension
credit—vulnerable individuals—do not get it, because they
are unaware of their rights.
There should
not be any means-testing for pension benefits, because the system puts
off older people from applying for certain benefits, and they end up
losing in other areas. Uptake of pension credit is also further
diminished by the fact that one in eight pensioners have still not
heard of pension credit. These problems have, we estimate, led to
£2.37 billion of pension credit going unclaimed. As such, each
person loses on average £26.40 in unclaimed pension credit, an
amount that could make a huge difference to people’s lives. Up
to £5 billion of other essential benefits for older people are
never claimed either, and against that background the clause is welcome
because it seeks to extend state pension credit and to ensure that
those who, for one reason or another, are not prepared to navigate the
complex web of forms receive state pension credit.
The
amendments would extend the pilots to include carer’s allowance
in the pension credit scheme to ensure that carers who are entitled to
pension credit are automatically assessed for entitlement to
carer’s addition, which provides £27.75 in addition to
the pension credit. If the automatic assessment is based only on
income, some older carers may be left out when they would be entitled
to pension credit if their caring responsibilities were
known.
9.30
am At
present, carers must apply for carer’s allowance to receive the
carer’s addition, which cannot be paid alongside the state
pension, and then reapply for carer’s addition.
That process would be much simpler if the carer’s allowance was
integrated with the pension credit pilots. We welcome the pilots, but
we hope that the Government will accept that it is sensible to include
carers in the
amendment. Mr.
McNulty: May I say—I forgot to do so
earlier— what a glorious pleasure it is to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Amess? In my juvenile approach to
these matters, I hurried along on the first amendment in the hope,
which subsequently proved to be reasonable, that the hon. Member for
Rochdale would not be here to move his amendment 63. I actually think
he rather wishes that he had arrived a bit
later. I
welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome, but let us be clear. There
is already a question on the pension credit form about whether the
applicant is in receipt of carer’s allowance. There is no such
thing in law as carer’s addition. The amendment’s effect
would be that we could not in any circumstances automatically carry out
the pension credit pilots that the hon. Gentleman welcomes. There is no
such thing in the parent Act or other legislation as carer’s
addition. I am sorry to be pedantic, but I can only work with the words
that the hon. Gentleman used in his amendment. It is clear that he
would not welcome exactly what the amendment would
do. I
broadly accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course there are issues
with take-up, but I do not agree entirely with his rather strangulated
description of pension tax credit and take-up in the first instance. He
seems to want to give the Royal Bank of Scotland chairman pension
credit, regardless of the proper use of public funds. He seems to want
every millionaire and everyone else who manages to reach the
appropriate age to receive pension credit. That is not the best use of
public resources. We are targeting the poorest pensioners, and that is
entirely the right way to
go. There
is no separate carer's addition. Pension credit provides an additional
amount for older people who are also carers, but it is not separate
from the pension credit entitlement; it is part of it. The amendment
would not do what the hon. Gentleman wants it to, but would achieve the
opposite, and we would not be able to get on with the automaticity
pilots that he seeks and welcomes. I ask him in the nicest possible way
to withdraw his amendment because it would not achieve what he
wants.
Paul
Rowen: I listened carefully to the Minister, but Carers UK
states in its
briefing: “Approximately
240,000 pension credit claimants received the Carer Additional in May
2008. Out of a total of 2.7 million pension credit claimants, this is
nearly 10 per
cent.” Is
the Minister saying that Carers UK is
wrong?
Mr.
McNulty: No, I am not. I thought that I had made that
clear. The carer’s addition, which is an additional payment to
pensioners who are also carers, is part and parcel of the pension
credit. There is no separate legal entity under law in the State
Pension Credit Act 2002 or any previous Act, so the amendment drafted
by the hon. Gentleman—not the carers’
association—is completely perverse in terms of the ends that he
seeks to achieve. I would rather he quit while he is ahead, withdraw
the amendment and let us get on.
| 
