Welfare Reform Bill

I shall also speak to the other three amendments to Clause 20 standing in my name. They translate into two specific issues of note and one amendment which is purely textual. I would first like to explain the purpose of the clause in order to put these amendments into context. Clause 20 replaces the existing system by which the Secretary of State may make a payment on account of benefit—also called an interim payment—with a more flexible system. Interim payments are an administrative tool that allows a payment to be made when normal benefit cannot be paid, usually because the claiming process is delayed or because the claim has yet to be determined. The new system will allow the Secretary of State to make a payment earlier than it would normally be paid in cases where there is particular financial need. Also, payments made in advance will be recovered gradually from subsequent payments of benefit rather than set against the very first benefit payment, as now. In other respects the new system will retain many features of the old. A decision, for instance, to make a payment on account will continue to be non-appealable, although decisions regarding recovery will still carry the right of appeal. The new system is designed to provide quicker and more effective help to those in need when they make their claim. Rather than having to make a separate application to the Social Fund for a crisis loan, the aim is that consideration can be given to making an advance payment within the claiming process itself. The first issue of note on these amendments is that we wish to remove housing benefit from the scope of the new regime and put it back on its existing footing. This is achieved by Amendments 133 and 134. The current requirements are that a local authority must make a payment on account of a rent allowance if it is impracticable to determine a claim within 14 days, and the delay is not the fault of the claimant. This works perfectly well as it is. In these circumstances, we believe it makes sense for the existing arrangements for housing benefit to continue as they are rather than introduce a new regime where, in the unique circumstances of this particular benefit, there is no real need. I will say something about Amendment 133A later, once the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has had the opportunity to speak to it. The second issue of note with the amendments in my name is that we want to remove a power that we believe is no longer required. It was originally thought that we would want to prescribe circumstances where a payment on account would not be brought into account against subsequent payments of benefit. On further reflection, we cannot envisage any such circumstance, so Amendment 135 removes the power in new Section 5(1B)(b) which would have been inserted into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. By the very nature of what it is, a payment made on account of a benefit stands to be brought into account against a payment of benefit whenever it is made. That is not to say, however, that the Secretary of State will necessarily pursue recovery of every last penny of an interim payment if the person never becomes entitled to benefit, or comes off it before recovery can be completed. Even if the Secretary of State opts not to pursue recovery, that does not mean that the sums paid should cease to be repayable. The final amendment, Amendment 136, is a technical change to avoid reference to an outdated side-heading in the Social Security Administration Act 1992 about—would you believe it?—community charge benefit. At this juncture, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to hear what he has to say about his amendment.