Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, we are talking still about benefit caps. We left the debate on Monday, I think, accepting that families hit the cap, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained so straightforwardly for us, through the interplay of both high rents and large families, a problem particularly in London and the south-east, with 70 per cent of those affected in social housing. Amendments tabled during our previous day’s debate sought, first, a more appropriate comparator by excluding child benefit in particular from benefit cap calculations—this was an argument by my noble friend Lady Lister—so that we could compare like with like and not apples with oranges. A second group of amendments suggested, wisely, a transitional period of grace before the cap was imposed. This is a theme to which I think we will all want to return, because we need a period of grace for quite a lot of the measures being introduced in order for them to settle down before the whole weight of penalties comes into play. We ran a similar amendment on housing benefit earlier. A third group of amendments sought to exclude subgroups from the caps—for example, those in supported housing, carers and kinship carers.

I want to focus on two aspects of all the debates that we have had so far, plus on the issue of carers, which was raised so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and issues of housing benefit raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I support the thrust of all the amendments. There was one golden rule of public finance that I learnt from my time in the department: amendments abating or removing cuts always cost more than the cuts originally saved, even if the situation is not restored to the pre-existing status quo. That may be the case here again.

I wish to raise some wider questions on Amendment 99A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She argued powerfully that just as PIP will remain outside of UC and the cap, so, equally, should carer’s benefit not be included in the cap, because they mirror each other, as they do in real life. The financial pressures, the fatigue and exhaustion, the using-up of savings and the social isolation apply just as much to many carers as they do to so many disabled people. We know that the Minister is sympathetic to carers, as is the whole House. So far, however, we do not yet know how many carers face a reduced earnings disregard. We do not know how many carers will lose carers allowance, because of the possible uneven mapping of the existing DLA passported benefit to the new PIP. We also do not know whether CA will come within the cap.

Given that the Bill is going through Committee stage here I feel that we are entitled to require the Minister to give us this information before we start Report stage and that we should not have to wait until we get to the clauses specifically about carers. If a single carer—it could be no carers, or it could be 100,000 carers—loses their entitlement to a passported benefit they will come into the framework of in-work conditionality which we have to deal with before we get to the carers clauses, at which point the Minister tells us he will be able to give us the information we want. We cannot do it that way round. It is not fair to the carers and it is not fair to Committee Members, who have been trying to do our best to get from the Minister—I am sure that he wants to be helpful on this—this information on the situation in which carers will find themselves. We must know everything about this situation before Report; otherwise some of us will be demanding that we go back into Committee, in the middle of Report stage, in order to take on board information that should have been available to inform earlier debates. It is not a proposal I would wish to argue. It is annoying for everybody concerned, but I feel quite strongly that it is not reasonable to ask us to proceed in this way.

The second area is housing benefit. Again, I strongly support the amendments moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, perhaps I may widen the point to remind the Minister of where we are so far and what we so far know, and then to ask him what advice he would give to a housing association such as mine—I declare an interest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. First, there is under-occupying. So far we have learnt that many of our poorest tenants would be required to move to smaller accommodation—except that we do not have it; it does not exist and it will not be built in the next few years. So the tenants will stay put and be fined on average about £20 a week. They have no savings, so they will run up arrears. However, we will be asked to avoid evicting them on grounds of decency as well as cost savings. Although such tenants would not be intentionally homeless through arrears generated by benefit cuts—as the Minister has helpfully agreed on the record—we would in any event have to rehouse them, probably in the house next door, if we evicted them. We will get substantial arrears from—although not pensioners—perhaps one-fifth of our tenants. I do not know.

We will perhaps also be faced, as we found from the discussion last week, with some tenants who are up against the housing benefit or UC cap. They too will face arrears, and again we will be expected as social landlords to avoid evicting them for what is not their fault. Again, arrears for us will mount.

We may also face cuts in housing benefit for those with supported housing in its various forms, although obviously this is a much smaller group. Again their arrears may mount, and again those will pass to the housing association.

Finally—an issue which we have not yet debated—we will certainly face substantial arrears in the move to direct payments to tenants rather than to the landlord.

Each of these four changes in housing benefit from DWP will plunge social housing landlords into mounting arrears. What is my housing association to do? We cannot raise rents to compensate for those arrears because we are at our fixed-target rent and DCLG does not allow us to go above it. We cannot get extra revenues from HCA or DCLG—indeed, they have cut our capital revenues by some 60 per cent. Housing associations could well find their accounts qualified, at which point the banks may threaten to reprice their capital loans because of infringement of a covenant, at which point our building programme falls.

I suppose that we could cut staff but the Tenant Services Authority within the HCA requires us to improve services. A 95 per cent satisfaction rate on any of the criteria it produces is required, which means that there must be staff on the ground, and quite rightly so. The driving-up of standards equals staff, which means that you cannot cut in that field either.

Put those four cuts together and they could send many housing associations into the red. Any one or two of these proposed benefit changes would be difficult to manage, but to face all four would be unbelievably difficult. I warn the Minister that he could be jeopardising the financial stability of a swathe of housing associations across the country. How then will the Prime Minister’s newly voiced concern for affordable housing be met? Given that 95 per cent of all housing stock that will exist in 10 years’ time has already been built, we cannot adjust the stock to meet what I believe is very wrong-headed, and in some places downright indecent, changes to HB. Some of us feel very strongly about this and it would seriously jeopardise our support for UC. DWP’s cuts in housing benefit will be offloaded to housing associations as arrears.

Goodness knows that local authorities are strapped for cash with 30 per cent cuts, but at least they have other financial resources. Housing associations do not. I repeat to the Minister that his savings will be our debt. DWP and DCLG have to get their act together. As I suggested at Second Reading, not entirely jocularly, if we could persuade DCLG to give up its batty scheme of localising council tax benefit with all the savings that accompany it and trade it for protecting the housing benefit, which would finance the homes we need and keep people in the homes that they want, UC would be welcomed widely across the country. I warn the Minister to take this issue very seriously. It will be very difficult for those in the field of social housing to cope when his cuts become our arrears with no capacity to meet them.

[Baroness Meacher]

I support Amendment 99A, which would exempt from the benefit cap, as others have mentioned, claimants with entitlement to carer’s allowance or additional allowances within universal credit for claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities. I am sure that this amendment was moved extremely ably by my noble friend Lady Hollins.

Perhaps I may make a couple of comments about the cap more generally. As Cross-Benchers, we do not normally refer to any political activities that we might have undertaken even in the distant past. Over a quarter of a century, however, I have spent rather a lot of time knocking on doors. One incredibly powerful recollection that I have is that the perception of the so-called scrounger was always the biggest single issue on the doorstep, even bigger than immigration. We cannot get away from the fact that low-income earners bitterly resent neighbours who they regard as being on benefits and, apparently, seeming to do rather better than they themselves. It is important that low-income earners feel that they are benefiting from going to work, which was the objective of the tax credit system. I strongly support the principle of that, albeit that there were a few problems with complexity.

As for the political motivation behind the benefits cap, I understand that people must have that incentive to work and that those in work should not resent those who are out of work. I have concerns, however, which I believe others have expressed, about the cap as a mechanism for achieving that sense of fairness. My understanding is that the design of the universal benefit should achieve this objective if only, as others have said, the council tax benefit were incorporated within it—at least except for a small number of very large families and some people living in very high cost areas.

I suggest to the Minister that the Government give some thought to finding a formulation in the legislation to achieve their fairness objective as between claimants and low-paid earners without resort to the notion of the cap. I know that the Secretary of State is extremely committed to this cap because it is a beautifully simple little message about being tough on claimants, if one is really honest about it. However, the Secretary of State should think carefully about whether this is acceptable within the traditions of democracy in this country. The aim, of course, would be to avoid relinquishing parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. That is important because the levels and structure of benefits should not be open to change by the Executive without reference to Parliament. I understand that that is possible with the Bill as drafted. I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but that is my understanding.

As regards this amendment, if the Government are determined to have the benefit—and I still hope that they are not—one group of claimants who clearly should be exempt are carers. About 200,000 children in the UK are being raised by grandparents, older siblings or other family members and friends. These carers step in to bring up a child or children as a result of very difficult family circumstances which often involve drug or alcohol misuse, abuse or neglect, death or serious illness, domestic violence or imprisonment. These carers are saving the taxpayer very large sums. These households are often large, simply because they have children of their own and then bring in others, perhaps five or more; so they will be disproportionately affected by the cap. I am sure that others have already mentioned this issue but I hope that the Minister will address it directly.

The idea of imposing a cap or some form of benefit control on large families is presumably to discourage parents from having more children than they can readily cope with, but that argument does not apply at all to carers who take on other people’s children. I do not know what the Minister feels about that point. Is that actually the main incentive behind the cap in relation to these households? Have I misunderstood? I would welcome his clarification. I know that he will want to support carers and hope that he is in a position to hold out some hope of concession on this issue. I hope that, at the very least, he will take this matter away for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, this amendment has its genesis as long ago as 1996. As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, I found that, at the end of their sentence, prisoners were released with a discharge grant of £46 or, if they had no address to go to, £92. The numbers claiming £92 went down when home detention curfew or tagging was introduced because, in order to qualify, they had to give an address. They were then required to go to their local jobcentre and sign on for whatever benefits they were entitled to, so having to live on their discharge grant until those came through, which could take up to three weeks and sometimes longer. I ask Members of the Grand Committee how they would cope if they were a single parent with dependent children having to live on £46 for three weeks, probably having lost their accommodation thanks to the rule brought in by Mr Peter Lilley in 1995 whereby council accommodation would be forfeited after 13 weeks of absence and their possessions removed. That is not to excuse those who break the law, but it offers an explanation for the appalling high reoffending rate among recently released offenders.

When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, and on several occasions since then, including in your Lordships’ House, I have asked why benefit claims could not be processed while someone is in prison so that on release they do not receive a grant but the first of future regular payments. As very many prisoners are receiving some form of benefit before they go into prison, it should not be beyond the wit of man to suspend those payments during the period of imprisonment and resume them on release. However, every sort of reason has been put forward about why that is impossible, which I put down to lack of will power: the prisons from which they are released may not be in the same geographical area where they live and, therefore, not in the area where their nearest jobcentre is; there are no Jobcentre Plus employees in prisons who could process the claims; or the prison into which they were received and which suspended their payment may not be the same one from which they are released. I think all this is baloney and that the Government, by not grasping the nettle, are contributing to the reoffending rate.

My amendment is designed to put an end to that nonsense by regulating that individual benefit claims are processed during a person’s imprisonment so that the discharge grant becomes a thing of the past, except for those who do not qualify for benefit. There are other spin-offs to this process that can only help the conduct of imprisonment, because an individual’s national insurance number is a unique identification weapon armed with which there is no reason why one cannot pass information regarding individual claims around the system. Unique national insurance numbers, without which benefit claims cannot be made, will also help to prevent identity fraud, because pretending to be someone else will deny provision.

My amendment specifically mentions those who were in receipt of benefits at the time of their reception into custody, but I shall amend it at a later stage to include the assessment of all people inside and the initial assessment of those whose entitlement is discovered only when they are in custody. What I am proposing is in fact in line with something that has already been set in train regarding the work programme. The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 August that the Government intended to mandate prison leavers to the programme immediately on release from prison, with national implementation for jobseeker’s allowance claimants from March 2012, and to work with the Ministry of Justice on a pilot integration of reoffending outcomes into work programmes.

To enable that to happen, Jobcentre Plus advisers will process jobseeker’s allowance claims in prison—although for some extraordinary reason it is said that discussions with claimants will be voluntary and not mandatory. They will then make a record of all prison leavers that will be retained for 13 weeks from the date on which they leave custody. If a claim for jobseeker’s allowance is made during that time, the prison leaver will be referred to the work programme at the point of claim. To a layman, this all seems convoluted and bureaucratic. If the Department for Work and Pensions really is fully committed to supporting the rehabilitation of offenders, why can officials not sit down with those from the Ministry of Justice and work out a system that applies to every single prison leaver, not just those who are in the market for the work programme or jobseeker’s allowance?

The reason for proposed subsection (3) in my amendment is that, all too often, resettlement essentials in prison are left until the very end of a sentence, in which case it may be too late to process benefit claims. However, if processing is started immediately so that a prisoner’s status on release is well known in advance, that will be avoided. This applies to the work programme as much as to the universal benefit. Of course there will be problems with those serving short sentences but, as I have suggested, suspension and resumption rather than initiation may well be the required process.

Bearing in mind the unnecessary reoffending and misery that present procedures have caused for too long, I have corresponded with both the Ministry of Justice and the Minister over this amendment, being amazed that successive Governments should not have done something to rectify this over the years—particularly this Government, in view of what they currently have in hand at both the MoJ and the DWP. I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my letters but, with respect, I suggest that in drafting his answer his officials may not have made the connections that I have tried to describe. I therefore ask him to reconsider his written refusal to support my amendment, dated 26 October, and meet me to discuss further action before Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I have not prepared any comments on this amendment, but it seems to me to be of enormous importance. I cannot imagine that the Minister would not wish to support it.

One very obvious proposal would be for every prison to work out the release rate of their prisoners and to determine how many hours per week of a Jobcentre Plus person they need in the prison to process all these prisoners in order that they are paid their full benefit entitlement before, I suggest, they go out of the door or within the first week.

It is a fact that a very large number of prisoners reoffend within that very early period following release, which seems almost inevitable. What else are these people supposed to do? I therefore hope that the Minister will indeed meet my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham to consider how to do it. It has surely to be done; it is a matter of how best to do it—whether to have people in the prison doing this work to overcome the problems of people moving from one area to another and even while they are in prison. I can see that that is a problem for individual jobcentres, but, one way or another, I hope that this can be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

I think I slightly missed my cue. I apologise. I rise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who gives her apologies to the Committee. My noble friend is unable to be with us due to a commitment in Birmingham today and she asked me to speak. I rise to give notice of our intention to oppose the question that Clause 99 stand part of the Bill. I must express my gratitude to Sue Royston of the CAB service for her help with this contribution.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove Clause 99, which requires claimants to apply for a revision before they can appeal. This clause would mean a mandatory extra step in the system, which complicates the process for claimants. The extra step has a strict legal time limit within which the application must be made. This inevitably means that some vulnerable people will lose their right to appeal, having failed to submit their application in good time. It will create extra work and extra expense. The reconsideration process is already in place anyway when someone appeals; the DWP just needs to use it more effectively.

What does the proposal mean for the process of challenging a decision? At present someone who receives a decision they disagree with has a month to challenge it. They can either ask the decision-maker to reconsider the decision or they can put in for an appeal. If they appeal, the DWP still has a duty to reconsider the decision. If, after reconsideration, the decision is unchanged, the appeal is passed on to the Tribunals Service automatically. This means that at the start of the process claimants have only one legal time limit to meet if they appeal. If the new proposal set out in Clause 99 is passed, someone who receives a decision they disagree with will have a month from the date of the decision to ask for a reconsideration. Then, when the claimant receives the result of that, they will have only a month from the date of the new decision to submit their appeal. Both of these deadlines will be strict legal time limits and a late reconsideration or appeal will be accepted only if good cause is proven. We all know that good cause is a very tough hurdle and very much a matter of discretion. One can never be sure that the decision is fair.

Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government regard this change as necessary. In the equality impact assessment published in October, one reason given by the DWP for this proposal is:

“We wish to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible, disputes between claimants and the relevant decision making body regarding social security, child support and certain other decisions are resolved through internal processes”.

It makes no sense to suggest that this proposal is to ensure that decisions are resolved through internal processes. The process for doing this is already in place. If a claimant wants to challenge a DLA decision and appeals, time is given to collect evidence and a proper reconsideration of the evidence is made. Where a good cause is presented, the decision is frequently overturned. The taxpayer is saved the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of that appeal.

However, in ESA cases, until recently it was very common to send in an appeal one day and get back the reconsideration by return of post refusing to change the decision—the appeal had been forwarded to the Tribunals Service before any evidence could be collected. The reconsideration process has recently improved. However, the improvements are patchy. One CAB in the south-west reported that it had started to see an improvement in the reconsideration process, but ever since the reassessment process started in earnest, it appears that the decision-makers have been overwhelmed and in not a single case where the CAB has helped claimants appeal has the decision been overturned on reconsideration, and yet at tribunal the CAB service has a success rate of 90 per cent. Clearly something is going rather badly wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has eloquently explained her concerns and those of her noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who cannot be with us today, about Clause 99. Let me try to address them.

I assure your Lordships that the time limits for claimants wishing to request a revision, or make an appeal, in relation to most social security benefits are not changing. What is changing is that claimants will need to ask for the decision to be looked at again before they can appeal. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is in everyone’s interests for disputed decisions to be resolved at the pre-appeal stage wherever possible. Previous figures have indicated that approximately 65 per cent of cases overturned historically were a result of additional evidence being provided that was not available to the decision-maker.

While the claimant will be required to apply for reconsideration within one month of being notified of a decision, the process for making the request is informal. It does not require the claimant to supply a substantial submission and can be done by telephone, face to face or in writing, so claimants should not be subject to additional expense.

The purpose of Clause 99 is to allow DWP to focus on revision rather than responding to appeals, enabling more disputes to be resolved at an earlier stage. Claimants will still be able to ask for a written explanation of the decision and, where they do, the one-month time limit for applying for reconsideration will be extended. In the event that a claimant fails to request a reconsideration on time, the deadline can be extended where there are special circumstances—for example, a hospital admission —which make it impracticable for the claimant to meet the deadline. I assure the noble Baroness that when a request for reconsideration is made beyond the one-month deadline, no formal submission of reasons will be required. They can be supplied by telephone, allowing a decision-maker to consider whether they meet the criteria for an extension of the deadline.

This clause does not change which decisions carry appeal rights; it will simply require claimants to go through the internal reconsideration process first. The purpose of this is to ensure that the decision-making and appeal process is both fair and proportionate.

Although reconsideration is already practised in DWP, there is no legislative requirement for it to be carried out when an appeal is made. Clause 99 will introduce this requirement. Currently, decisions are routinely reconsidered on appeal, so the reconsideration process takes place after the claimant has already decided to appeal to the tribunal.

Under the new arrangements, DWP will use direct contact with the claimant to gather additional evidence relevant to the decision and will provide an explanation of the outcome of the reconsideration. The process will allow a claimant’s decision to appeal to be informed by whether reconsideration had provided them with a clear justification for the original decision, and a clear explanation of it.

Some parts of DWP have already introduced a more robust and independent reconsideration process. However, claimants may often have already made a formal appeal before this process begins. As the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, under Clause 99, where a decision is overturned upon reconsideration, this will save the taxpayer the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of appealing.

The noble Baroness makes the point that, under the current process, no one can get to a tribunal without confirming their intent to carry on. However, if a claimant does not respond to the TAS1, the appeal does not simply stop. The tribunal will still be required to make a decision to strike out the appeal.

Currently, the claimant has 14 days to respond to a TAS1, which is sent along with the DWP response to the appeal and often the reconsideration outcome. Unless the claimant appeals early, which is the issue that we are trying to resolve, this gives the claimant only a short time to consider this information and make an informed decision on whether to proceed with their appeal or to withdraw.

Clause 99 will allow the claimant to make an informed decision about whether to appeal, having passed through a less formal process. There is currently no time limit for the DWP to complete the reconsideration process, nor is one proposed, but it is important to the DWP that each stage of the decision-making and appeals process is carried out within acceptable timescales and does not result in unreasonable delays for claimants. The department is considering carefully how best to monitor and evaluate this in future.

The noble Baroness expressed a concern that claimants will not qualify for payment of ESA pending reconsideration. No appellants should be left without support, since other benefits such as JSA may be available. No decisions have yet been made to change ESA. The main focus of the DWP is to make the correct decision, based on all the available evidence, at the earliest point. Clause 99 will also help claimants distinguish between revision and appeal. The process will be clearly explained via decision letters, leaflets and through direct contact with claimants.

The noble Baroness referred to costs. There will, of course, be costs, particularly relating to IT changes, to implement this clause. The DWP expects to meet these within its spending review settlement. Furthermore, savings are expected to be made in both the DWP and the Ministry of Justice via a reduction in appeals.

I do not think that I have responded in detail—

[Baroness Meacher]

It seems to me that this is a tricky subject area. I am struggling as regards what benefit there might be in introducing Clause 99. It seems to me that one is shifting the responsibility from the DWP to get on and undertake one of these reconsiderations to the claimant requesting that this happens. I am sure that the Minister will accept that these claimants have a pretty difficult life to manage anyway. To add on another process that they have to go through is going to cause all sorts of problems. Why cannot the DWP improve its processes as regards the reconsiderations so that they can happen automatically if a claimant is concerned about a decision? The DWP should get on and undertake a reconsideration, asking for any further evidence or whatever it wants. If it comes out with the same decision, it then informs the claimant and asks him or her whether they wish to pursue their appeal. I am not clear about that process. Can the Minister help me with that?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we are not trying to introduce a new stage—reconsideration and appeal have existed before; we are trying to get a better process of reconsideration before we get to appeal so that we can avoid a large number of appeals that occur. We are introducing an element of flexibility and informality so that claimants are not held quite so rigidly to deadlines, information and the form in which it comes. We plan to make the process more streamlined for them as well as for the department. We require Clause 99 to effect that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

It will not be an independent process but it will be monitored closely in the department.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for that full response and the detailed explanations about a number of these tricky issues. I have no doubt that my noble friend who is unable to be with us today will read Hansard carefully and may want to come back to it later.

Clause 99 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear such full-hearted support for monthly payments. First, I would like to speak to Amendment 103ZZA in my name. This amendment is technical in nature and seeks to restore the policy intent and simple premise that where a claimant has a debt, the debt should be recoverable from them. In the majority of cases, overpayments of benefit, penalties, payments on account and certain hardship payments will be recoverable from the claimant and will be recovered by deduction from the benefit that is paid to them. As the Bill is drafted, however, the Secretary of State is prevented from recovering such payments where the claimant’s benefit is paid directly to a third party, for example a landlord. This means that recovery from a claimant is limited to deduction from those benefits paid directly to them. This is unintended and so this amendment seeks to ensure that where a claimant’s benefit that is subject to recovery is paid to a third party, recovery may be made from that benefit.

This ensures that the DWP maintains the same powers of recovery as it does presently for recovery by deduction from housing benefit where it is paid directly to a landlord. Although the claimant may have other benefits from which deductions could be made, to do so adds both cost and complexity to the recovery process. In such cases, where no benefit is payable other than that paid to the third party, the DWP would be reliant on negotiating repayment from non-benefit income or potentially using direct earnings attachments to recover from debtors who are in pay-as-you-earn employment.

The situation becomes even more difficult where the debtor will not negotiate repayment, has no benefits paid directly to them and is not in pay-as-you-earn employment. Without the amendment, this would result in a situation where the DWP or local authorities have no effective way to recover the overpayment or penalty. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that where there is an obligation to repay benefit debt, the fullest possible powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make recovery by the most efficient means.

I shall now address Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD, 103ZZE, 103ZA and 103ZZZA. These opposition amendments seek to achieve a number of objectives, but are primarily concerned with protecting debtors. I am sure that there is no disagreement over the need for safeguards for vulnerable claimants and those in financial difficulty. We recognise, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that protection needs to extend to the calculation of overpayments as well as their recovery. In common with the noble Baroness, we recognise that such a provision has value in ensuring that an overpayment reflects the true loss of public funds and for this very reason, such a provision already exists in secondary legislation relating to the recovery of overpayments of current benefits.

Like the noble Baroness, we believe that similar provisions should apply here, but feel that such a provision sits more happily in secondary legislation. For that reason, I am happy to offer my assurances that it is our intention to make provision for such a calculation in the regulations to be made under Clause 102, new Section 71ZB(4), which allows regulations to provide that recoverable amounts,

“are to be calculated or estimated in a prescribed manner”.

Placing the provision in secondary legislation allows for both flexibility and review.

Concerning the other issues raised within these amendments, I believe that future overpayment recovery from working-age claimants will be more streamlined and efficient than it is presently. Recovery will thus provide both greater returns and better value for money for taxpayers. For example, under the previous Administration, it was believed that there was a right under common law to recover overpayments occurring due to official error, and the DWP thus requested repayment of those overpayments on that basis. I see that noble Lords who may have been responsible for those requests are in agreement. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no such right and that is why we are legislating to bring the law for working-age benefits back in line with the policy of the previous administration—a policy that we support.

Prescribing that an overpayment caused by official error would not be recoverable if the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that they were being overpaid brings forward a need to make subjective assessment of the debtor’s capacity to understand entitlement before the overpayment is determined. Although I sympathise with the lack of understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about all the incredible overpayments that she gets and the £1 million that goes into her bank account on a regular basis, I have to say that that is not workable in this context. The DWP will not be prescribing those circumstances for the discretionary write-off or non-recovery of an overpayment. Cases will be considered carefully on their individual merits because each case is different.

As mentioned earlier, the code of practice will outline the policy as to whether recovery should be pursued, and lead to considered, consistent decision making. in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am happy to confirm that that will be published in the form of a leaflet.

Considering whether an overpayment can, or should be recovered, the DWP will look at a number of factors, not solely whether the claimant received the money in good faith. It will have regard to ensuring that deductions from benefit or earnings—

[Baroness Meacher]

Will the code of practice be available to us before Report so that we know whether we have a reasonable situation?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I am pleased to confirm that it will be available in draft. I want to avoid the cost of printing up a leaflet.

We will ensure that deductions from benefit or earnings to repay an overpayment should not lead a debtor to suffer undue hardship. That remains a cornerstone of our overpayment recovery policy. As presently, future benefit recovery will be subject to regulations that provide for a maximum rate of recovery. In many instances, however, this maximum rate of recovery may still prove unaffordable for some claimants. In such cases, the DWP will discuss an alternative repayment rate.