Danny
Alexander: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The new clause
relates to the process by which overpayments of housing benefit are
legally recoverable. The Committee will know that, under the current
housing benefit regulations, all overpayments are recoverable unless
three conditions are satisfied: that overpayment was caused by official
error; that the claimant did not cause that error; and that the
claimant could not reasonably have realised that an overpayment had
been made. The new
clause probes the Government’s thinking on how to deal with
overpayments of housing benefit. The test that I have
described—in particular the third element—is harsher than
that for other Department for Work and Pensions benefits. As I
understand it—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I
am wrong—the tests for those benefits do not include the third
element. The new clause probes whether that additional third hurdle is
reasonable. 4.15
pm Once again, I
am indebted to Citizens Advice and Shelter for some useful briefings.
Perhaps I should have stated earlier that I am vice-chair of the
all-party group on citizens advice. I am not sure if that counts as an
interest, but it certainly makes me interested. [Interruption.]
I would not go too far. Citizens advice bureaux report regularly
their concerns that overpayments are being recovered despite the fact
that claimants have promptly and correctly reported their full
circumstances and the overpayment is due to an official error or
failure to act promptly on information provided by claimants in a
timely, correct and appropriate way.
Failure to recover
overpayments has an impacton local authorities’
performance targets so theyare reluctant—perhaps
understandably—to use their discretion not to recover the money.
In some cases, the resultant debt caused by somebody realising that
there has been an overpayment that must be repaid, much like the
problems in the tax credit system, puts a major strain on the household
budget of the claimant, who by definition of the fact that they are in
receipt of housing benefit is on a low income.
Where the claimant already has
a suspended possession order against them and is repaying rent arrears,
for example, on a set rate over a set time, the additional burden of
repaying a housing benefit overpayment can easily tip them into
breaching an order and facing eviction. The consequences of asking
people to repay overpayments in circumstances in which they have done
everything right except understand the rather byzantine and complex way
in which housing benefit calculations are made can be serious, and in
some cases cause severe hardship to claimants. In that shared spirit of
concern about those in such circumstances, I look forward to the
Minister’s
response. In many
cases, it seems that the root of the problem is the regulation that
allows the recovery of overpayments even in cases of administrative
error, if the person ought reasonably to have known that they were
being overpaid. It is worthy of the Committee’s consideration
that the complexity of the housing benefit regulations, the scheme and
scheme application process means that collecting overpayments on those
grounds could in some case be unreasonable. I hope that the Minister
will respond to that point in his reply to this short
debate. A further
issue is that sometimes, in cases in which repayment is demanded even
when someone has done everything that could possibly have been expected
of them, bar understanding the complex procedures that would have been
necessary for them to have realised that they were being overpaid,
claimants do not seek advice and simply accept the overpayment recovery
as inevitable and pay up. I am sure that many hon. Members in this
Committee will have had that experience, not least in connection with
tax credits, but I am sure in connection with other benefits as well.
Those people have to cope with the consequences, which are likely to be
long-term rent arrears threatening their housing security and living
standards. As a result, they are more likely to get into debt in other
areas. I know that the Minister is rightly concerned about child
poverty. He will be aware of the impact that such long-term financial
considerations can have on child poverty and I hope that he will look
at the new clause in that
light. In his
response, I would like the Minister to address the contention that, in
the cause of fairness and benefits simplification, which we have been
discussing, the housing benefits rules should be aligned with those of
other means-tested benefits by removing from the provisions the words
“reasonably have been expected” to realise, so that
overpayments are recoverable only if the claimant has failed to
disclose or misrepresented a material fact. Running through the Bill is
the underlying principle of responsibility and we have debated during
earlier clauses the idea of reciprocal responsibility. It is quite
right that the claimants should have responsibilities—indeed,
local housing allowance in particular will increase those
responsibilities by giving claimants responsibility for paying rent
themselves—but surely authorities have responsibilities too.
Local authorities have a responsibility when they have made an error
not caused by the claimant. Surely they should accept that rather than
expect repayment to be made in all such circumstances. I look forward
to the Minister’s response.
Mr.
Boswell: I need make only a brief contribution. I
sympathise very much with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s
comments in moving the new clause. As a matter of what might
be termed judicial reasonableness, Ministers are at least obliged to
share with the Committee why the hurdles should be set slightly
differently for housing benefit than for other benefits. That is not
just some sort of lawyer’s quibble; it is a substantive
issue. I understand
that to the extent to which something is obviously wrong, there is an
obligation on the citizen to do something about it. I will share with
the Committee an experience from my association with a not-for-profit
organisation. We recently received a cheque for a six-figure sum from
the Department for Work and Pensions. As it was mentioned to me by the
treasurer, I had the opportunity to draw it to the attention of the
Secretary of State—who I hope did not pocket the
amount—and we got it back to the right place. It is perfectly
reasonable when dealing with such people—the turnover of the
organisation was rather less than £10,000 a year—to say,
“Something has gone wrong, and we really ought to do something
about it.” We can be good-natured about that.
I must admit to the Minister
of State that I do not always agree with him on political issues, but I
agree that I might have been a little sharper in my exchanges yesterday
with his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, on official error. I was
somewhat surprised by his colleague’s assertion that only a
quarter of overpayments related to official error rather than client or
customer error. We will not debate that at length now, but the fact is
that a significant number do arise from official error—too many
for comfort. That is partly a function of the benefits system, and it
is important that we should get to the bottom of it, see why it happens
and get it rectified, which is the most important thing.
Our constituents who might
claim, even more than some of us, to know a little bit about this
complex system, are not expected to sit an exam on the details of the
benefits system. They also have a perfectly natural predisposition to
say that if the calculation is an official calculation it is likely to
be right. I am not talking about people getting a cheque for
£250,000 in the post as their housing benefit; I am talking
about comparatively minor overpayments that are not easily
spottable. Adam
Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I am sure that my hon. Friend is
aware that people with dyslexia or learning difficulties have great
trouble reading multi-page forms and letters on benefits from local
authorities and central Government. That exacerbates the
issue.
Mr.
Boswell: I entirely agree. My wife used to be an adult
literacy practitioner, and my hon. Friend accurately reports the
experience of many people in that
position. I ask the
Minister of State to reflect on one further point. I do not know the
answer; I raise it in a spirit of inquiry. We had a little fun
yesterday about the error taskforce. The error taskforce has an
important job to
carry out, and I would like it to do so properly and be resourced to do
so. I am not entirely clear whether its remit extends directly or
indirectly to local authorities’ performance in overpayments of
housing benefit. Administration of housing benefit is a function
derived from statute but devolved by the Secretary of State to them as
local housing authorities. It would make a lot of sense, given that it
is for all practical purposes a social security benefit, if the error
taskforce were able to investigate local authorities to see, for
example, whether there are significant differences in performance
between the 408 local authorities, as I suspect there are, or between
the local authorities system and what one might call the central
benefits system. We
in this Committee have a common interest in trying to get the regime
right, minimising errors at source and being fair to citizens if an
error occurs. Trying to tease out the right balance in doing so is the
spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, and I hope that the
Minister will reply accordingly.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey was right to pay his compliments to Citizens Advice. Hon.
Members on both sides of the House will likewise pay tribute to
Citizens Advice nationally, and, more importantly, at local level for
its phenomenal work in supporting people in communities throughout the
length and breadth of the United Kingdom, not least in my constituency
where a fantastic woman called Teresa O’Hara manages the
citizens advice bureau in Barrhead to great
effect. The hon.
Gentleman said that in tabling his probing new clause, he was motivated
to make non-recoverable those overpayments in housing benefit and
council tax benefit caused by DWP official error. I say first that the
Government were minded to treat that type of overpayment in the way
envisaged in the new clause. An addition to primary legislation would
not be necessary, as current powers mean that the Secretary of State
could do that by way of regulations if he were so minded. However, the
Government do not intend to do that; all types of housing benefit and
council tax benefit overpayments are recoverable from the customer,
including those caused by DWP, Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs, and the local authority
itself. That type of
overpayment can be recovered only if the customer could reasonably have
been expected to realise that they were being overpaid. Only then
should recovery be pursued. If that were not the case, people would be
allowed to keep taxpayers’ money when they knew they were being
overpaid. That is not reasonable, and I do not believe any hon. Member
would consider that to be a reasonable way for a Government to behave.
If we were to try to convince the Committee that it was reasonable, I
suspect that a series of alternative amendments would be tabled, quite
fairly, to say that it was
not.
Mr.
Boswell: We all understand the outlying case, such as the
one I cited, half in jest, about a six-figure overpayment. The
insidious and difficult case is one in which the citizen or claimant is
receiving slightly more than they should, so there is a grey area as to
whether
they, a non-expert on the social security system, thought, “Well,
that is a bit more than I was expecting, but if that is what they sent
me they must be right.” That is different from a grossly obvious
overpayment. It is easier to see that something is wrong if the
overpayment is a thousand quid a week than if it is a tenner a
week.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is
why the customer has the right to appeal against the decision to
recover overpayment. That is the important protection within the
system. The DWP
seeks repayment of overpayments under common law. Housing benefit and
council tax benefit are treated as they are in terms of the recovery of
overpayment primarily because the customer would be expected to know
their rent level and their council tax liability, so the types of wild
fluctuation that the hon. Member for Daventry reasonably raised would
be easily identifiable within a housing or council tax benefit
payment. I hope that
that reassures hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We know
from constituency case work—the letters we receive from
constituents and the people who attend our surgeries—that the
matter causes frustration and worry. That is why the balance of the
challenge is on reasonable expectations, and why people have the right
to appeal against a decision. We must also ensure that recovery
measures are implemented sensitively, so that the customer—the
citizen—can afford the repayment from their remaining income.
That is important, particularly in the context of child poverty and
family poverty in general. Although it might not have a dramatic impact
on the 60 per cent. median income measure of relative poverty, it will
have an acute impact at a local level on material and absolute poverty.
We should not lose sight of that as we roll out the local housing
allowance and try to get the system absolutely
right. 4.30
pm
Danny
Alexander: Probably the nub of the debate is the meaning
of the word “reasonable”; perhaps it always was. The way
in which the Minister described the meaning of the word was reasonable,
and I think that all members of the Committee would agree with it. My
concern was that in some specific cases the implementation on the
ground is not as reasonable as the Minister described. I am reassured
by his remarks, but I hope that he will monitor carefully the local
implementation of the provisions to ensure that the reasonableness
provision is not used, contrary the intentions behind it, to require
claimants to have a level of knowledge and understanding of the benefit
system that might only be held by a few academics, and perhaps not even
to members of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
40Social
security
information
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 168, in
clause 40, page 33, line 6, after
‘evidence’, insert ‘other than medical
evidence’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 169, in clause 41, page 34, line 23, after
second ‘information’, insert ‘excluding medical
information’.
Danny
Alexander: I shall be brief. There are broader issues,
some of which were raised earlier by the hon. Member for Daventry, that
we might consider in a clause stand part debate.
The amendments would exclude
medical information from the information that can be shared under
clauses 40 and 41. The reason is pretty simple and straightforward: as
I hope all members of the Committee agree, medical information is
particularly personal and is, with good reason, subject to a great
degree of confidentiality in the medical system. Without such an
exclusion, there is a risk that medical information about claimants
could float around the system, being passed back and forth between
agencies. That could include potentially sensitive, personal medical
information. Is there not a risk that relatives or other people known
to a claimant could get access to their medical information through the
mechanism in the clauses? It is an important principle that medical
information about an individual should be subject to very high
standards of confidentiality and of appropriateness before being shared
with any other agency. I hope that the Minister can allay my
concern.
| 
