Clause
48Loss
of Benefit for commission of benefit
offences Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I want to take this opportunity to probe the
Government’s thinking on this change. In previous debates in
this Committee in which we have discussed benefit sanctions or
conditionality, I have been keen for information from Ministers about
the evidence on which the proposed change is based.
As I understand it, the clause
will extend from three years to five years the period in which benefit
may be sanctioned or lost if a second benefit fraud conviction takes
place. Will the Under-Secretary tell the Committee on how many
occasions the power has been used since it was introduced with a
three-year limit? When it has been used, on how many occasions has it
resulted in benefit being withdrawn entirely, and in how many has
benefit been withdrawn partially?
In the no doubt detailed
assessment that the Under-Secretary and her officials carried out
before proposing the change, in how many cases would the power have
applied since it was introduced if the five-year time limit had been in
place rather than the three-year time limit? It is important
for the Committee to understand, looking back, what difference the
extended power would have made in practice in evaluating the judgments
that Ministers have made in advancing the clause. I look forward to her
explanation of that evidence
base. 6.15
pm
Mrs.
McGuire: It may not be possible to give the detailed
analysis of the number of cases per year, for which the hon. Gentleman
asked. However, I can give him some information, which I hope will be
useful, on the number of cases that we anticipate, based on current
trends. That may go some way to deal with the
issues. The clause is
about deterring benefit fraud, rather than punishment. We are
determined to tackle benefit fraud. When a person is convicted of a
second benefit fraud within a specified period—we are asking the
Committee to accept that the current period of three years should be
extended to five—that allows us to reduce benefit entitlement or
to remove it. The Department already uses that process to reduce
benefit fraud, but it is especially aimed at deterring those who offend
persistently and have been given repeated warnings to the effect that a
further conviction would have an effect on their benefit. The current
legislation works. We want to maximise the deterrent effect, without it
running contrary to other legislation relating to re-offending, such as
the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which some offences are
spent after five
years. The hon.
Gentleman asked for the number of cases that we would expect to capture
by extending the legislation. We anticipate that, based on current
trends, there will be somewhere between 30 and 50 additional cases per
year. However, we should hope to see a
reduction in the number of cases. If people realise that there could be
a removal or a reduction of their benefit, that in itself will,
hopefully, be a
deterrent. Mr.
Boswell: The Under-Secretary is giving a satisfactory
response to the queries that have rightly been raised. Will she confirm
that there has been no historic difficulty with the three-year rule in
respect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and that there have been no
successful defences of the allegedly fraudulent claimant on the grounds
that, somewhere, the process has been unfair? Bearing in mind that
Ministers have given their certificate about compliance, will she
confirm that a five-year period is within those principles? I have no
difficulty with
them.
Mrs.
McGuire: The hon. Gentleman identifies specific
circumstances where an individual may wish to pursue a case under human
rights legislation. I assure him that the five-year period does not run
counter to that. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has made a statement under the
Human Rights Act, which is at the front of the
Bill. I have talked
about the cases that we hope to catch in future, based on our current
analysis. Currently, there are 320 cases per year where two strikes
have encouraged us to see whether there should be a sanction, and the
sanction was applied in 190 cases. There are no details about how many
people were in hardship or partial award. I hope that that is a
satisfactory explanation for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and
Strathspey. The
penalty applied on the two-strikes cases will not change. I hope that
that gives some comfort to the Committee. It remains a fixed 13-week
period, during which a customer’s benefit ceases or may be
reduced. It is not necessarily removed; it can be reduced. Most
importantly—this links into what is behind the hon. Member for
Daventry’s question about safeguarding rights—those first
convicted of a benefit fraud will receive a written warning telling
them about the two strikes provision. Therefore, people will be under
no illusion: if they continue to defraud the benefits system there will
be a penalty with the two-strikes approach. Any right of customers to
request hardship payments will not change either. I hope that gives
some comfort to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey. These
payments will help to ensure that the basic needs of vulnerable
customers or those with families continue to be met. No deductions are
made from retirement pensions, benefits paid for children, or
disability living allowance, while an underlying entitlement remains to
passported housing benefit and free school meals.
I hope that members of the
Committee will appreciate that we are extending the time for very good
reason. We want to root benefit fraud out of the system. We have also
built in safeguards so that those who are vulnerable will have
protection under the new system. Most of all, we will make clear to
customers who have a tendency—as I say, we are talking about
very small numbers here—to defraud the system what the penalties
are for that action. With that explanation, I trust that the Committee
will accept the clause. Question put and agreed
to. Clause 48
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
49widowed
mother’s
allowance Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I welcome the clause, but may I have some
latitude, Mr. Hood, to probe a related matter briefly? This
clause and clause 50 seem, on the face of it, to make improvements in
respect of the conditions that relate to widowed mother’s
allowance and widowed parent’s allowance in cases where the
child is not resident with the parent. It seems broadly sensible to
place that under the heading, “Benefits for bereaved
persons”. It
has recently been drawn to my attention by a constituent that there is
another matter relating to bereaved persons. I hope the Minister might
be able to take that away and have a wee look at it: the conditions for
entitlement to funeral grants where there is a sharp three-month
cut-off point. If the claim is not made within three months, not only
can there be no appeal, but the administrative rule is strict. I have
recently had a local case where a claim has been refused after the
three-month period, despite there being reasonable grounds for an
appeal to be considered and a grant to be made. I hope that, with the
leave of the Committee, the Minister will have a wee think about that
and come back to me.
Mrs.
McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on
both clauses 49 and 50, which are linked. He is right: it is an
improvement on the current situation. The arrangement is to withdraw
child dependency increases as part of the move to child tax credits.
The exact provision had not been made, and we have used this Bill to
tidy that up. With
regard to entitlement to bereavement grants and the three-month
cut-off, if memory serves—a few of us here were around in the
1997-2001 Parliament—there was some debate of that issue at that
time. It was accepted by the House that we should have a three-month
period when the bereavement grants would be considered and after that
there would be a cut-off. I will not give any definitive comment at the
moment and I will get back to the hon. Gentleman about that particular
issue. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 49 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Clause
50 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
51care
component of disability living allowance: persons under the age of
16 Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: Clauses 51 and 52 make provisions for people
under 16 in relation to the care component of the disability living
allowance and the mobility component respectively. Will the
Under-Secretary give a brief statement as to the rationale behind the
changes?
Mrs.
McGuire: I welcome this opportunity to clarify the
changes, which will be of particular interest to Committee members who
are interested in the administration of the disability living
allowance. Clause 51 removes an anomaly from the legislation governing
the entitlement conditions for the care component of disability living
allowance for people on or around the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman
rightly points out that clause 52 is linked to clause 51—I hope
that I am not going out of order here, Mr. Hood—and
covers entitlement to the mobility element of the DLA.
The changes are
principally to ensure that people on or around the age of 16 do not
lose three months’ benefit entitlement. To be entitled to DLA, a
person must have satisfied the conditions of entitlement for at least
three months—the so-called qualifying period—and must
continue to satisfy them for a further six months. That is the
prospective test, because the benefit is for long-term conditions.
Additional entitlement conditions apply to children under 16. A recent
social security commissioner’s decision highlighted an anomaly
in the legislation that meant that people on or around the age of 16
who claim DLA or an additional amount to an existing award could lose
up to three months’ worth of benefits.
The clause modifies the normal
conditions of entitlement for children under 16. It will principally
mean that someone who is 16 or over who claims DLA or an additional
amount to an existing award will be awarded the benefit if they satisfy
the normal adult entitlement conditions even if part of the qualifying
period falls before they were 16. Conversely, a child who is under 16
will have to fulfil only the additional conditions that are applicable
to children up to and including the day before their 16th
birthday. The clause
does not change the entitlement conditions for adults or children. It
simply ensures that the entitlement of people who claim on or around
their 16th birthday will continue to be decided in the way that
existing legislation intended. This is a situation in which the law was
not quite in balance with the original policy intent, and we have taken
this opportunity highlight the anomaly and to clarify the legal
position. I welcome this opportunity to explain the changes because it
will make a difference to young people who need to claim DLA and will
prevent the cliff-edge effect that sometimes happens in the benefit
system when a young person goes through the legal transition from
childhood to
adulthood. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause 51
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
52 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Heppell.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Six o’clock till
Thursday 30 November at ten minutes past Nine
o’clock.
| 
