Welfare Reform Bill

Amendments 138 and 139 concern loss of benefits in the case of conviction for a benefit offence. I understand, and indeed agree with, the principle that benefits payments cannot be unconditional. There cannot be so much money in the public pot that they can be paid out in any circumstance, and part of the contract between the citizen and the state must be that if the state is supporting an individual, it is entirely reasonable to expect that individual to comply with the law of the land. Such an obligation extends to everyone, of course, but the punishment in the case of a non-claimant is the criminal conviction and sanction that they receive. Because there is an added relationship between the state and the recipient of benefits—that is the money they receive as welfare payments—it is therefore logical and reasonable to consider these payments when an offence related to benefits is committed. This pair of amendments, therefore, looks at the relationship between a benefits offence and a benefits sanction, although in practice they are really drafting amendments. The first, Amendment 138, inserts a caveat into new subsection (6) on page 25 which makes clear that this sanction applies only until the abolition of income support under Clause 7. I expect that the Minister will argue that the addition of these words is unnecessary to the operation of the Bill, as he did on my previous amendment. I am even prepared to concede that he will probably be correct, but I wish to make the point that sanctions will migrate, just as the recipients do, from one type of benefit to another as the whole system is rationalised. That must be made clear to people if we are to have a sanction that includes loss of benefit. There must be no ambiguity about what that sanction may entail. I worry that some of the deterrent qualities of such sanctions may be muddied if people do not realise exactly what they stand to lose if they commit an offence. The second amendment deals with the definition of an offence. On page 26 we are told that a post-commencement offence, ""means any criminal offence committed after the commencement of this section"." To me that is only half clear. I understand the post-commencement aspect, but the rest is rather baffling. If we track down through new subsection (13) on page 26, we are told, first, that "benefit offence" means (a), (b), (c) or (d), all of which are post-commencement offences relating to any benefit offence. That seems fair; but does the Bill really mean what it says, whereby a post-commencement offence is "any criminal offence"? Does that include murder, hunting with hounds, driving under the influence, smashing windows and any other criminal offence? Does the Bill really mean to open up the definition of benefits offences as any and all criminal offences? The last line of new subsection (13) appears to widen enormously the remit of the benefit sanctions regime. Is that intentional and is that correct? I beg to move.