Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I want to make a couple of comments about the recovery of overpayments. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey covered this territory earlier, and it is uncontroversial to say that if an overpayment is made, it should be recovered. However, I have two concerns. With the changes to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, an overpayment that is due to a banking or processing error by the local authority or whoever makes the payment will automatically be reclaimed without a new decision confirming that an overpayment was made. Somebody who is a couple of hundred pounds overdrawn, who continues to spend, as most people do, and who does not spot the overpayment will be put in a difficult position if the money has to be returned immediately. They are already in a difficult financial position, by virtue of the fact that they claim those benefits. I want an explanation of how the new power to reclaim an overpayment immediately will impact on the least well off in society—those who claim benefits.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that as more benefits are paid automatically into bank accounts, for reasons that we have rehearsed in other places, overpayments will become less obvious to the claimant? For example, my winter fuel payment status has changed during this month. I have no idea whether the Department has succeeded in paying my wife and myself, or only myself or whatever. I shall find out by the end of the month, and if anything is wrong, I shall rectify it. However, I cannot do so immediately. Many people in that position may continue to pay up until they run out of cash in their account.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

My hon. Friend clearly illustrates what may happen, and I accept his point entirely. With many benefits paid into a single bank account and with many direct debits and other demands on people’s accounts, an immediate reclamation without a decision on an automatic payment made to a claimant could cause great difficulty.

The clause also says that the Department or the paying body will be able to reclaim an overpayment when somebody has misrepresented the information that they provided. Of course, if somebody has deliberately misrepresented the information that they have provided in order to obtain a short or long-term benefit or payment, that is unacceptable and it should be dealt with appropriately through an immediate repayment. However, will the Minister of State assure the Committee that where someone who has dyslexia, which many of my friends struggle with to a certain degree, or a learning difficulty accidentally writes one wrong figure on a form, there will be a safeguard to ensure that they will not be immediately penalised and treated as if they had participated in a gross misrepresentation?

Having voiced those two concerns, which I trust the Minister of State will be able to address, I am happy to sit down.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

We are making deserved and popular progress, so I shall not seek to delay the Committee. Clause 43 is headed, “Recovery of overpaid benefit: Great Britain”. It might help the Committee if I confirm that the clause seeks to codify what already occurs in practice. No one will be affected in a material sense by the power we are taking in the clause. The issues that the hon. Gentleman reasonably raises as concerns are already dealt with in practice. The clause ensures that there is no ambiguity in the legislation about the processes for determining and recovering overpayments of benefit when they are paid through the banking system. Social security commissioners have said that this aspect of our legislation is unclear, and we are taking this Bill as an opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt.

An overpayment of this kind can arise, for example, when a benefit payment is issued through the banking system and a change in circumstances that reduces entitlement is properly reported by the customer after the time that we are able to recall the next payment, but before the payment enters the person’s account.

The clause does not remove the need for an award to be revised before an overpayment can be determined, as that is retained within new section 71(5A). However, it will enable us to review an award and then consider the recoverability question at a later date, allowing for a more considered approach to determining whether the overpayment is recoverable. The change follows a similar one in 1996, and simply ensures that benefit overpayments can continue to be dealt with as was always intended. Given the reassurances that the clause simply codifies current practice and removes any dubiety or lack of clarity identified by the social security commissioners, and notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about what already happens, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.