Welfare Reform Bill

Debate on whether Clause 21 should stand part of the Bill. I did not table an amendment to this clause, which, as we know, is about benefit sanctions for offenders, because I was not entirely sure that there was a real problem. However, I am now convinced that there is enough hard evidence from citizens advice bureaux around the country to highlight that there is indeed a problem. The CABs report that clients who were being called to an interview under caution for investigation of possible benefit fraud were often uncertain about what they are being accused of. In some cases, the call to interview is the first that they have heard of the allegation, and it is not adequately explained to them why they are being investigated. Some do not realise that they are entitled to be accompanied to the interview. A person whose benefit is being stopped due to investigation may be entitled to hardship payments, but many are left vulnerable to falling into rent arrears and losing their homes. A lack of flexibility in the system means that people who have made a genuine error—sometimes due to major upheavals in their lives, such as the death of a partner, or because of complex reporting requirements related to some benefits—are nonetheless prosecuted. A common theme running through the CAB evidence is that the reasons for a so-called fraudulent claim are complex and often result from a mistake by either Jobcentre Plus or HMRC. The following is a good example. Three years ago, a woman was receiving income support and child tax credit. She visited Jobcentre Plus to ask how many hours she could work without her benefit being affected. She was told that she could work for up to 16 hours a week, but that turned out to be quite misleading. If she worked for up to 16 hours a week, she would still be entitled to income support, but any earnings above £20 a week would have to be declared and deducted from her income support. This poor woman started work only to find that both her income support and child tax credit were stopped. The following April she received a letter saying that she was no longer entitled to income support due to a change in circumstances, but she was also invited to renew her claim, which she did, including a statement of her earnings for work. She genuinely believed that she was entitled to the benefits but then faced a fraud investigation due to poor advice from Jobcentre Plus. The complications in the system are such that great care should surely be taken to ensure that genuine claimants who are simply baffled by the complexities of the system are not accused of fraud and do not have their benefits cut. One has only to go to the Directgov website to try to find out about, say, child tax credit, to see the complexities set out. First, one is directed to the HMRC website. Then there are three pages of directions about how an award is worked out. Many people are coming into the benefit system all the time who will be unfamiliar with it, let alone those whose knowledge of English is extremely limited. We all want genuine benefit cheats caught and prosecuted, but we do not want our enthusiasm to catch fraudsters to include in the net those who make genuine mistakes and find that they are sanctioned quite inappropriately. I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments.