Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Freud (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 November 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.


Welfare Reform Bill

Clearly, there are always difficult and special cases. I suspect that an old lady would not be eliminated entirely. The answer is that there is support for people with particularly tricky circumstances. We will work with local authorities that will be collocated in many cases, especially with the single fraud operation being set up. The shades of grey, which will start to rule out negligence, will be very evident in most of those cases. In justification of the £50, that sum was chosen because we believe that this is a sufficient amount that will act as a punishment and make claimants more personally responsible for the overpayments they incur and encourage a positive change in their future behaviour. We have also set a significantly lower amount than the harsher punishments available for fraud offences, which reflects the fact that it is directed at the failure to take proper care of a benefit award and is not about fraudulent behaviour. Under the appeal process, the claimant will be able to appeal against the overpayments decisions, the civil penalty or both. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to reject Amendments 104AA and 104ZA.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c14GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Appeals Benefits rules Deductions Arrears Child Support Agency Fraud Fees and charges ICT Domestic abuse Exemptions Overpayments Mental illness Maintenance Parents Negligence Social security benefits Social Security Advisory Committee Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Universal credit Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
Legislation
Welfare Reform Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk