Baroness Sherlock (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their early and constructive engagement on this topic. I understand that the intent of Amendment 109 is to replicate some of the safeguards introduced in Schedule 5 for direct deduction orders for the recovery of universal credit and new-style overpayments by deduction from benefit. Although I understand clearly what the proposers of this amendment want to do, I cannot accept it. However, I hope I can provide some assurances along the way. The DWP is committed to improving payment accuracy to prevent overpayments occurring through continuous improvement activity. Where overpayments do arise, the Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and ensure that, wherever possible, money owed to DWP is repaid. But within that objective, we are clear that our aim is to secure affordable and sustainable repayment plans and ensure that safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable debtors. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, Amendment 109 applies not just to official error but to all universal credit and new-style benefit overpayments recovered from benefits, including debts arising from fraud. The DWP already sets out that fraud overpayments are subject to stricter recovery rules due to their nature and seriousness. To treat all debts the same would not be right; it would be unfair on those who obtained a DWP benefit in good faith. This amendment also applies only to debts being recovered by deductions from benefits. A key driver for the new debt recovery measures is to bring greater fairness to debt recovery, giving DWP the tools to recover debts from those debtors who are not on benefits and have the means to repay but choose not to. This amendment could undermine that important objective. Taking each part of Amendment 109 in turn, proposed new subsection 8(a)(i) would require DWP to give an individual notice on the basis of the deduction amounts. Individuals receive a notification about the overpayment; setting out the deduction rate and basis for this would present significant challenges. Benefit awards can fluctuate month to month, and deductions for repayment of debt are calculated accordingly. The deduction rate will also depend on other deductions being taken. Therefore, a legal requirement to issue a fixed notice setting out a single rate of recovery may risk being inaccurate, confusing or even misleading. However, noble Lords are making an important point, and while I cannot accept the amendment, I commit to the House that in response I will explore how we might notify individuals more clearly about forthcoming deductions within the existing legal framework. I intend to do this as a part of the commitments I have made to review our communications to those with debts. Proposed new subsection (8)(a)(ii) seeks to replicate the representation stage for direct deduction orders where recovery takes place by deduction from benefits. These processes are intentionally different because when deductions are made from benefits, DWP already holds accurate information about benefit payments, existing deductions and in some cases income from other sources. Crucially, there is also no ambiguity about ownership of the funds. Notifications already make it clear that at any time, the individual can contact DWP to discuss the affordability of the deduction. By contrast, for the DDO process, DWP may know little or nothing about a person’s financial circumstances because they are not on benefits or in PAYE and they have refused to engage with us. This is why the Bill makes provision for DWP to obtain bank statements as an important safeguard. However, we recognise this may not give DWP as complete a picture as we have for benefit claimants. It is therefore right that individuals and any joint account holders can make representations about information that may not be apparent from statements alone before a deduction is taken from a bank account. Nevertheless, in line with my previous commitment, I will commit to look at what more we can do to make our communications as clear as possible on how claimants can contact the department at any time to discuss repayment. I will also look at the timing of these communications. Turning to proposed new subsection (8)(b), I agree that deductions from benefit should not cause unintended hardship and should be fair. This Government are committed to the principle of debt repayment being affordable; that is why processes exist to achieve this. Protections are in place to prevent excessive deductions. Regulations set out the maximum rates of recovery from benefits for fraud and non-fraud debts. For those in receipt of universal credit, as my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, the fair repayment rate policy, which this Government introduced on 30 April, reduced the total amount that can be deducted from universal credit from 25% to 15% of the standard allowance in most cases, and I am grateful to her for acknowledging that. Crucially, there is also a priority order for deductions taken from universal credit to ensure that debts such as housing arrears are taken first to prevent people facing eviction and thus causing hardship. Recovery of overpayments is a long way down the list of priority order. Moreover, there are robust processes in place to support the vulnerable and those struggling with debts, such as referrals to the Money Adviser Network for free and independent and impartial money and debt advice. I again stress that individuals can and should contact DWP at any time to discuss repayment terms. Where individuals make contact, DWP can reduce or temporarily suspend recovery depending on the circumstances. In exceptional cases, DWP can consider waiving recovery of the debt entirely. I turn now to the question of fairness in this amendment. The extension of whether the act of recovery itself is fair differs from the provision in Schedule 5, which is limited to consideration of the deduction being fair in the circumstances as known to DWP. Every overpayment decision has existing mandatory reconsideration and appeal rights, and these are the right routes to challenge whether the overpayment should be recovered. Although Amendment 109 is specific to recovery by deduction from benefits, it risks creating uncertainty as to whether it was fair to recover by other methods too, such as by deductions from earnings, or voluntary repayment plans. Finally, proposed new subsection (8)(c) would limit the commencement of recovery of any overpayment of UC or new-style benefits from deductions from benefits to six years. The existing framework under Managing Public Money provides enough flexibility to forgo the recovery of historic debt where appropriate. Imposing a statutory time limit on commencing recovery would have consequences that may not be intended; for example, DWP could be prevented from recovering money obtained through benefit fraud where we could not reasonably identify the fraud until six years after the payment was made. It is important to distinguish DWP recoveries from those by other creditors through court orders, for which a limitation period might otherwise apply, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, indicated. DWP recovers benefit overpayment debts one at a time, beginning with the oldest. Due to the protections that I outlined earlier, we recover by deductions from benefit at a much lower rate than other creditors typically would, and we rightly prioritise deductions for certain debts, such as housing or utilities arrears, over benefit overpayments to prevent hardship. That means that recovery of a UC or new-style benefit overpayment could rightly take place some time after the initial overpayment has been notified to the individual. A blanket limitation would risk undermining the integrity of the process, could create hardship for individuals and could significantly reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money returned to the public purse.