My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very short but useful and important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out that we have sought to be flexible in these amendments. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, thinks that we are being somewhat restrictive. However, that is not the intention; we are trying to be flexible, recognising that there will be circumstances where it will not be appropriate for a lifetime award to be made.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, made an important point in speaking about someone with experience of an illness that will not improve. Putting someone through all the problems and distress of a review will not be helpful at all. We all hope to God that many of these problems can be solved as time goes on. My noble friend Lord McAvoy made the point that, if what we are asking for were in the Bill and there were some considerable improvement in one area or another, we would obviously need to change the law if that were appropriate. Therefore, I think that we need to be flexible on that.
The Minister made the important point that £630 million had been overpaid in DLA. However, from my experience of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I would say that one really has to look into how that happened. Very often, it was due to failure by the department and not because someone’s condition had changed. The National Audit Office reports point this out. Indeed, on one occasion I had a case where a constituent had to complete a form and there was a box to be ticked against the question, ““Have you received income support in the past year?””. She ticked it and underneath wrote, ““But it ceased on X date””. However, because the form was scanned in, the department’s system could not read the words underneath, so it continued to overpay her and then demanded the money back. I fear that the problem of overpayment is often caused not by the person making the claim but by the system, in any event.
I thank the noble Lord for his clarity on a number of points and for the encouragement that he gave. I feel that can we make progress, as the way that we are working in this Committee and in this House helps us to improve the quality of legislation because of the backgrounds, knowledge and expertise that so many noble Lords have on a whole range of matters. I believe that by collaborating, we will protect those who are perhaps the most vulnerable—certainly, those who concern those of us who tabled this amendment—so that they will not have to go through all the trauma and difficulties associated with constant review of their benefit once it is awarded, if their condition is such that it will not improve. Having said that, I thank the Minister for his comments and I am sure that we will enter into more dialogue about this in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 86F withdrawn.
Amendment 86G not moved.
Clause 85 agreed.
Clause 86 : Report to Parliament
Amendment 87
Clause 86 : Report to Parliament
Amendment 87
Moved by
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Touhig
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c320GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:58:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_786544
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_786544
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_786544