Contribution
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment because it raises, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, a question of principle. Should a person who received payments in error always be required to make restitution in full?
We are dealing with the application of this principle in the context of welfare payments, but it may be useful to keep in mind how this principle would apply in other contexts under our law. The default position is, as one would expect, that a party that has received money in error is obliged to return that money. However, it is also the case that our law has developed an important exception to this general position. This is known as the change of position defence, which was first recognised by Lord Goff in the case Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 1991, where he said that
“the defence is available to a person whose position is so changed that it would be inequitable in all the circumstances to require him to make restitution, or alternatively, to make restitution in full”.
In essence, where the person has changed their position, in good faith, in reliance on that payment—for example, by spending it—restitution in a non-welfare context may be denied in whole or in part.
As I said, it is an equitable exception that our law has developed over a number of decades and on the basis of various decisions. It is a complex area of law known as unjust enrichment, on which many doctoral theses have been written. The reason it has attracted so much attention is that there is a conflict of fairness. On the one hand, it seems right that the payer who paid in error should, in principle, receive the money back and that people should not derive benefit from someone else’s innocent error. On the other, it also seems wrong that someone who made no error and relied, in good faith, on that payment should be unduly penalised. The common law and equity seek to strike a balance between these two concerns with the change of position exception that I have outlined.
For welfare payments, we are dealing with a context where statute rather than common law applies; however, it seems that the concerns that the common law has sought to address in other contexts arise even more acutely. The people who received the payments are socioeconomically disadvantaged and very likely to have spent that money, as the case mentioned by the noble Baroness illustrates. Thus, they are very likely to have changed, in good faith, their position by relying on those payments. To ask them to return that money is particularly burdensome on individuals who are on benefits and without a safety net.
Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act, which the amendment proposes to change, seems a very blunt instrument. It responds to that first concern—to ensure that the payer, in this case the taxpayer, should have their money back—but it does nothing to protect the bona fide recipient of that payment from being penalised unduly. For that reason, it seems a fundamentally unfair provision. It seems wrong that the protection that a bona fide recipient of a payment in error would enjoy in other contexts, including a commercial context, should not apply to the bona fide recipient of a welfare payment made in error. This amendment seeks to remedy that unfairness, and it has my support for that reason.
It is true that Section 71ZB gives the Government a discretion and I suppose it will be said that there is guidance that tells the Government to exercise that discretion, taking into account certain circumstances. But the good will of the payer is not sufficient and that certainly is not the position under the general common law on restitution. It is not just a matter of the payer having the good will not to pursue the recovery of the payment; there has to be more to recognise that the innocent beneficiary, too, has an entitlement to protection. It seems to me that this amendment seeks to provide that correction to Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
I will, of course, be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the various mitigations that might exist, but at the moment I agree that, unless the mitigation is in statute, whatever guidance might be in place will not be sufficient. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her officials for the very informative briefing last week.