| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. It is quite true that we on this side of the Chamber--and indeed everybody in the Chamber--are very much against protection for crooked landlords. We have done our best during discussion of this Bill to ensure that provisions in relation to that sort of fraud are strengthened rather than weakened and we would not want to do anything that protected such people.
I am also glad of the Minister's assurance, given earlier in his statement, in regard to what one might call the poorer claimant who may have made a mistake many years ago. The Minister does not think that local authorities would go back that far in order to check on that kind of suspected fraud. It is that kind of individual that we most wanted to protect. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
(" . In section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (overpayments), after subsection (1) insert--
"(1A) In a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question referred to in subsection (1) above was not fraudulent, this section shall entitle the Secretary of State to recover only the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination.".").
Earl Russell: I had given the Minister notice that I intended to withdraw all my amendments from the Marshalled List. Through an administrative oversight,
The Deputy Chairman: Does the noble Earl assure the Committee that he will not wish to move any of his amendments?
Clause 13 [Offence of dishonest representation for obtaining benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Penalty as alternative to prosecution]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Recovery of overpaid housing benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Reviews initiated by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 95
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 95 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that reviews can only be initiated where the Secretary of State has adequate reasons to question the validity of continuing claims for attendance allowance, disability living allowance and disability working allowance.
At the present time, there are two ways in which a review can be initiated: either by the claimant on the decision of the adjudication officer or by the adjudication officer where there has been ignorance of a material fact, a mistake or a change of circumstance.
There is, however, some confusion--and it is partly because I seek clarification that I move this amendment--on how broadly a Secretary of State, through the adjudication officer, can go in initiating a review. This clause clarifies that position, but the opportunity also seems to have been taken to give the Secretary of State substantial new powers to obtain information prior to instigating review.
Amendment No. 95 would ensure that such investigations are only carried out where there is some evidence which puts the claimant's entitlement in doubt, such as change of circumstance or other reason for review already stated in subsections (2) and (5). It would prevent the Benefits Agency from carrying out random fraud visits to vulnerable people without good reason.
Amendment No. 96 makes it explicit that there would have to be initial information available which throws doubt on the continued validity of the claim. Subsection
I am grateful to both the RNIB and the Disability Alliance for providing me with evidence in support of the amendments. For instance, the RNIB evidence draws on work undertaken for its report, Seeing it our way, carried out to assess the attitudes of fully sighted people on visual impairment. The report reveals that there is substantial public ignorance about visual impairment and the need for aids such as a dog or a white stick. One must not assume that a lack of a visual sign of blindness means that blind and partially sighted people do not need assistance. Given that ignorance, it is possible for someone to ring the fraud hotline and initiate a review because they falsely believe that a visually impaired person is a bogus claimer because he does not have a guide dog.
As we have constantly said, there must be initiatives to tackle fraud, but we must be concerned that spurious allegations do not lead to unwarranted information-gathering exercises, causing considerable worry and distress to claimants whose claims are completely legitimate. These amendments would at least secure that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds to doubt the continued validity of the claims before seeking additional information.
In the Committee stage in the other place the Minister stated that disability is not a fraud issue; rather that this Bill is a convenient vehicle to clarify existing legislation. If that is the case one must ask why a Bill aimed at tackling fraud includes two clauses on disability benefits.
It can only relate to a reply given on 12th February to a parliamentary Answer which seems to suggest that, following a review into DLA, the Government perceive a link between claims for DLA and fraud based on an assumed overspend of around £250 million annually. Can the Minister say how he relates that to the Benefits Agency having met its 1995-96 accuracy targets of 96 per cent. for DLA?
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the whole text of the report on DLA and incorrectness is made available and that no decisions are taken on tackling that assumed incorrectness without full consultation with disability organisations. If the review focused on the lower and higher rate mobility components of DLA and the DLA and the "ability to walk", as we understand was the case, can the Minister deny the rumours about changes in interpreting "ability to walk" and give an assurance that no changes are planned which may diminish the right of blind and partially-sighted people to get the lower rate mobility component of DLA.
In conclusion, the Bill as it stands gives wide power to the Secretary of State to gather information which may be maliciously or spuriously activated and result in intrusive and unnecessary information gathering. These
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness and explain why this clause is included in the Bill and the reasons behind it. That may perhaps allay her worries.
Clause 17 is concerned with the Secretary of State's ability to investigate the correctness of existing awards of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and, if appropriate, to refer cases to an adjudication officer for review. The investigation concerns simply the power to obtain evidence. It carries no other implications. Clause 17 is not intended to confer a new power but to clarify an existing one.
It is right and proper that, in order to safeguard the public purse, the Secretary of State may take action to satisfy himself that benefit is being paid to an individual correctly. In DLA and AA, as in most others benefits, decisions and reviews of decisions are made by adjudication officers. Uniquely in the DLA and AA, the adjudication officer cannot initiate a review of the decision off his own bat but must rely on an application for a review being put to him. That position came about as a result of introducing a specific provision allowing the claimant to apply for review. That was intended to be helpful to the claimant, and indeed it is. However, it has had the unforeseen side effect of opening to question the Secretary of State's ability to apply for a review because it is not so specified.
The question concerning the Secretary of State's power to apply for a review has been posed by Mr. Mark Rowland, now Commissioner Rowland, in his book Medical and Disability Appeal Tribunals: the Legislation. It was always intended that the Secretary of State would apply for a review, and the Government have no doubt that the Secretary of State does have those powers. That necessarily includes the ability to investigate cases in order to establish whether a review is necessary, and, if so, why.
Where a question arises about a specific case, whether as a result of information received from a claimant or from a third party, obviously the Secretary of State will want to investigate. That is right and proper. Where a question arises in relation to a specific type of case--for example, as a result of management checks on individual cases or a survey such as the recently published benefit review of DLA--the Secretary of State needs to investigate. To do that he also needs to establish whether the benefit as a whole is being administered properly and, indeed, to identify those areas in which it is weak. That is a normal activity in benefit administration. It is necessary and right and within the Secretary of State's power.
The Secretary of State has a duty to taxpayers and to claimants to ensure that the benefit, which is worth £6.25 billion this year, is going to those who are entitled to it. The benefit review I mentioned, which has been published, identified 27 per cent. of current awards as
The 27 per cent. of current awards which are incorrect includes some 10 per cent. of claimants who are being underpaid. That seems to arise largely as a result of unreported change. The incorrectness therefore is not just through bad calculations on the part of the Benefits Agency; it is also through unreported change of one kind or another. The important point is that, largely due to unreported change, something like 10 per cent. of claimants were being underpaid.
Amendment No. 95 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to carry out investigations that would provide him with information about the correct level of benefit. As I outlined, it is unacceptable for that reason. There has been speculation that the department proposes wholesale investigations throughout the entire DLA caseload. The noble Baroness or those advising her seemed to fear that. I can assure her that that is not the intention. Our interest is in ensuring that the awards in payment are correct, which includes increasing them where appropriate, as well as reducing them.
Amendment No. 97 would remove Clause 17(2), which makes it explicit that the Secretary of State's power to investigate and apply for review includes cases where AA or DLA have not been awarded for a fixed period. Let me first make plain what the term "life award" refers to. It relates to awards in which it is expected that the person's condition will remain with him and will not improve throughout the remainder of his life, so removing the need for unnecessary periodic review. It was never intended to mean that such awards were immune from review. Indeed, review is provided for in legislation. For the care component of DLA, Section 72 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides that:
The provisions in Section 32(4) of the Social Security Administration Act which relate to the circumstances in which a component awarded for life may be reviewed were designed to remove the need for a review when both components had been awarded but only one was a life award, the other being for a fixed period. That protection for the component awarded for life is unaffected by the amendment, which is itself aimed only at putting the Secretary of State's existing power to apply for review beyond doubt in this particular circumstance as in others.
The amendment before us would prevent the Secretary of State from investigating these awards when it was appropriate to do so, but it would also prevent clarification of the law so far as those awards are concerned. As I think I indicated, we have no intention of going on some wholesale review of DLA. We had always believed, until Commissioner Rowland's book appeared, that the Secretary of State had the power to initiate a review and that it was not just a claimant who had the power to initiate a review.
I appreciate that these allowances go to people who are very often severely disabled and very much in need of help. I very much appreciate that a clause like this at least demands some explanation. I hope I have explained what we are doing. I hope the noble Baroness accepts that what we are doing is entirely above board and does not in any way represent an attack on DLA or the people who receive it.
Page 25, line 5, at beginning insert ("Where there is evidence to raise a question with a view to a review of entitlement under subsections (2) and (5) above,").
5.15 p.m.
"a person shall be entitled to the care component of a disability living allowance for any period throughout which he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that",
and so forth. The legislation then lists the care needs which would entitle him to each of the three rates of the care component. Similarly, in Section 73, the legislation again provides that a person shall be entitled to the mobility component for any period throughout which he meets one of the list of qualifying conditions. The intention is plain. Regardless of the length of the initial award, entitlement exists only as long as the qualifying conditions relating to specified care and mobility needs are met.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page