Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberPublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 255 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 258 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.
Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.
Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.
New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—
“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—
(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;
(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;
(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and
(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”
This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—
“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.
(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—
(a) prepare a report on the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Minister.
(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—
(a) publish it, and
(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”
This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.
New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—
“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.
(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—
(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or
(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.
(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—
(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and
(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.
(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—
(a) published;
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and
(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.
(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”
This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—
“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—
(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and
(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;
provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—
(a) commenced;
(b) amended; or
(c) discontinued;
the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”
This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.
New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—
“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—
(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or
(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.
(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—
“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.
(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—
(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;
(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and
(c) recommendations for change.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—
(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and
(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”
New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—
“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””
This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—
“(1) A person who-
(a) commits,
(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or
(c) encourages the committal of,
fraud against a public authority commits an offence.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.
(2) The powers to be applied must include–
(a) the power of arrest;
(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”
New clause 10—Liability orders—
“(1) Where a person–
(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,
(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and
(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,
the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.
(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—
(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;
(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and
(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.
(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”
New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—
“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”
New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”
New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.
(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”
New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”
New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.
(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–
(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and
(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);
(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;
(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.
(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,
(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and
(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—
(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and
(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”
New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—
“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—
“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.
(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.
(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”
(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—
“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.
(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.
(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””
New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—
“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”
This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.
New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
(2) The report must include—
(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,
(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—
(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and
(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,
may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,
(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.
(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—
(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or
(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,
the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert
“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.
Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert
“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.
Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”
Government amendments 25 to 29.
Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.
Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.
Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.
This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.
Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.
Government amendments 34 to 43.
Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—
“(a) the liable person agrees, or
(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.
Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.
Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—
“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.
(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.
(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”
This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.
(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”
Government amendments 72 and 45.
Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.
This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.
Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—
“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”
This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.
Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”
Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12
This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—
“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.
This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.
Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.
This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.
Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert
“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”
Government amendments 46 to 67.
Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.
This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.
Government amendment 70.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.
This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill is that it will recover a tiny 1.8% of losses?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector; the Bill will recover £1.5 billion. However, it is part of broader measures—certainly on the Department for Work and Pensions side of the Bill —to save £9.6 billion across the forecast period. By the very nature of the changes that we are making with the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are designing them to be scalable. As the PSFA becomes more familiar with the work it is undertaking, we think that it will be able to save a significant amount more.
As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, with benefit fraud alone costing £7.4 billion in 2023-24, this is a major problem that is getting worse, not better. We cannot afford to ignore it, and we certainly do not accept it. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. Our public services, everyone who depends on them, and the taxpayers who fund them, all suffer. And they are increasingly suffering at the hands of fraudsters who use ever more sophisticated techniques to steal money meant for the public good.
The private sector has evolved and adapted its tools and tactics to respond, but, as the scale of the losses that I have just outlined make clear, the same cannot yet be said for the public sector. With this Bill, we will put that right. There will be new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside the tax and social security systems, and new powers for the DWP to modernise its response to fraud and error in the benefit system.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, this Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the dodgy business people who try to defraud our public services and it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system. It is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. And it is fair to taxpayers, who deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Human Rights Act 1998 was one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a Labour Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this Bill in no way contravenes the secrecy part of the 1998 Act?
Andrew Western
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jenny the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament.
Andrew Western
I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jenny would always be most welcome on this side of the House.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said that powers exist, but, plainly, they are not working, because we know that “sickfluencers” are doing their deeds and people are responding to them, particularly in the mental health sphere, where many of the claims are made. Indeed, we know that officials, or those acting on behalf of officials, are looking out for buzzwords, because, if there is a buzzword in there somewhere, they can bank the case and move on to the next one. Therefore, something plainly needs to be done to stop this. Will he look again at the Opposition’s new clauses 8 and 21, which would ensure that “sickfluencers” are targeted specifically, and say what, in the Government’s amended terms, they would do to deal with this particular group that are contributing significantly to the failure identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) in relation to the amount of money that we are able to claim back from the huge sum that is lost to fraud every year?
Andrew Western
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done; what we differ on is the need for specific legislation in that regard. Where we are falling down at present is in the scale of the activity we are undertaking. We could be doing significantly more at the moment, but as I said in response to the previous intervention, I have commissioned work to ensure that that happens. We already routinely contact social media companies to ask them to take down specific posts that could help people to commit fraud against the welfare system. I am very happy to consider practical points, but I am convinced that we have the legislative weaponry required to take the necessary action to deal with people who are encouraging others to commit fraud, both online and elsewhere.
Government amendments 23, 24, 39 and 40 bring into scope the kind of information necessary for fraud investigations and enable the PSFA and DWP to compel certain types of special procedure material, including banking records or records of employment, in line with the policy intent. Requesting this type of information is not new for DWP and occurs under its existing powers. The amendments ensure that the PSFA and DWP can compel this information to support fraud investigations, while also ensuring that important exemptions are in place, such as those for excluded material and journalistic material.
Government amendments 30 and 31 seek to address two separate issues in respect of clause 67. Government amendment 30 includes a provision in the Bill so that the powers granted to the PSFA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE—by clause 7 of the Bill are exempt from the application of clause 67(5). This will ensure that the clause does not interfere with existing PACE provisions in relation to legal professional privilege, enabling the Bill’s PACE measures to function as intended.
Government amendment 31 removes subsection (6) in clause 67, which currently overrides existing self-incrimination protections on the PSFA’s information-gathering powers and PACE powers. This allows the common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply in the usual way—under the information-gathering powers—and ensures that the proposed PACE powers align with established PACE practices. The amendments ensure that clause 67 provides essential safeguards for the PSFA powers in the Bill related to the processing of information.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will accept that there is growing concern about issues of automated decision making, artificial intelligence and algorithms. While wanting to ensure that we get the best results, is the Minister able to commit to the transparency we need when it comes to AI and algorithms in relation to the Bill to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not unfairly hit?
Andrew Western
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I can give him that assurance and that we comply with all the Government’s required standards around the publication of such information.
Government amendments 25 and 26 relate to clause 9, which amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the Independent Office for Police Conduct director general’s functions to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators, enabling them to consider PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. Clause 9 also enables the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. Section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out requirements for such regulations made under that Act.
However, section 105 only applies to regulations made by a Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Office has no Secretary of State, this section would not include the regulations that the Minister for the Cabinet Office can make under clause 9. Government amendment 26 corrects that technicality so that section 105 also applies to that Minister. In addition, Government amendment 25 simply removes reference to part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 within clause 9(1), as the Bill will refer to the Act more widely, rather than just part 2.
Government amendments 48 and 72 provide a clear legislative framework for how the DWP and the PSFA will handle and transfer seized evidence to the most appropriate law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. The amendments will ensure that evidence is handled by the organisation best equipped to deal with the specific nature of the alleged crime, fostering inter-agency collaboration and reducing delays to investigations.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is presumably keen to determine how much money is lost to fraud in Scotland, and I imagine he will require the Scottish Government to report back to the UK Government on their progress in clamping down on benefit fraud, but the same should apply in the rest of the country. That, of course, is the purpose of new clause 13, which would require an annual report on the amount of money recovered through the processes that he has outlined. Will he accept new clause 13? Will he also assure me on the point about the Scottish Government’s reporting of fraud?
Andrew Western
I assure the right hon. Member on his point with regard to the Scottish Government. However, I will resist new clause 13 because the publication of the DWP’s annual accounts will provide sufficient information about our performance on fraud and error.
Government amendment 42 specifies that the functions of the independent person who can be appointed by the Secretary of State in clause 87 do not apply to devolved benefits unless those are delivered by the Secretary of State under agency agreement. Government amendments 60 and 67 will amend the time required for compliance with a production order served in Scotland. That is to match normal conventions in Scotland. Government amendment 43 ensures that the new debt recovery powers taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill apply only to devolved benefits, while the Secretary of State recovers devolved debts under agency agreements.
Government new clause 18 and Government amendment 33 are consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers under the 2001 Act are unchanged by the Bill. Government amendments 36, 37 and 38 seek to clarify exemptions in the DWP’s information-gathering powers to deliver the intended policy outcome.
A key safeguard in the new DWP information-gathering powers is the exclusion of personal information about users of particular types of free services, such as advocacy and advice services that offer crisis support, for example when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. The intent of the safeguard is to ensure that nobody is deterred from seeking the support they need when they need it. However, the current drafting of that exemption in the Bill as “not for profit” is too broad. That excludes certain information that is very likely to be relevant to a DWP fraud investigation. For example, it prevents the Department from compelling information from housing associations, such as an individual’s address or tenancy, which can be instrumental in proving or disproving a suspicion of fraud.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion?
Matt Western
I would be very happy to report to the House on the reasons why we would not do that. I am sure the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her separately to set out how I intend for us to do that. It seems to be a reasonable request.
Returning to my original point, the current drafting would mean that DWP can compel information of that kind from private landlords or estate agents, but not from housing associations. There is an inequity there that we are seeking to address with the amendments, clarifying the drafting and continuing to protect the personal information of service users of crisis support or advocacy services.
The Bill also brings forward new information-gathering powers that govern how DWP-authorised officers can compel information to support an investigation into fraud. It also sets out where information must not be compelled—for example, to protect the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege. Separately, the Bill brings forward powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP-authorised investigators, those tasked with investigating the most serious cases of fraud. It does that by bringing those authorised investigators under the remit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, and by creating similar powers in Scotland for DWP-authorised investigators. That ensures that those investigators are governed by a similar legal framework to other law enforcement bodies that are granted access to use those types of powers.
Government amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the exemptions to information that DWP-authorised officers can compel are not applicable to authorised investigators when using powers of entry, search and seizure. Government amendment 45 mirrors that provision for the PSFA. Those amendments will support effective fraud investigation, as without access, crucial evidence might remain out of reach, slowing down our response to fraud. Those exemptions are important, but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, already provides such restrictions and safeguards by only enabling that information to be compelled with the approval of the courts, coupled with similar conventions that apply for Scotland. The amendment ensures that there is no duplication. The powers in the Bill remain in line with existing conventions, as set out in PACE, and correctly reflect the norms of the Scottish legal system.
Turning to Government amendments 61 to 66, paragraph 10 of schedule 3ZD currently refers to definitions within PACE in relation to special procedure material, confidential professional material, excluded material and items subject to legal privilege.
Government amendments 63 and 51 set out specific definitions to avoid linking provisions that relate solely to Scotland with existing legislation that applies to England and Wales. This also ensures that legal privilege and “items subject to legal privilege” references contained in the schedule are correctly defined for Scotland. Government amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to amendment 63.
Government amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the powers for the DWP under PACE taken by the Bill in schedule 4 are aligned with those of the police and other Government Departments, such as HMRC, and provide a clear legal framework for what evidence can be seized and how it should be handled. Government amendments 47 and 48 mean that DWP-authorised investigators, such as the police, can seize items that are reasonably believed to be evidence of an offence, not just DWP-related offences, when undertaking entry, search and seizure activities in England and Wales. This will mean that potential evidence of any other offence, if discovered in the course of a search, can be preserved and may be seized where it is considered necessary to prevent it from being destroyed or moved. The amendments ensure that the law is clear on how it must be handled and transferred to the most appropriate law enforcement agency in England and Wales. Government amendments 49, 50 and 59 make similar provisions for authorised investigators in Scotland to those I have just described for England and Wales.
Government amendments 57 and 58 clarify how authorised investigators can prevent access to seized evidence from any offence if it may prejudice criminal proceedings in Scotland, by amending the definition of “offence” in schedule 3ZD inserted by schedule 4 of this Act. This mirrors the same provisions that are already in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales.
Government amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 are all minor and technical amendments to correct inconsistencies in terminology. Government amendment 34 is a minor and technical amendment to provide the correct reference to powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to ensure that the powers in Scotland align with those in England and Wales. Government amendment 52 amends the period of time in which a warrant must be exercised to Scotland from three months to one month. This corrects the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.
Government amendment 70 ensures that the court has the power to order a person, having been disqualified, to provide their NI or EU driving licence, as is already the case for those holding a GB licence, under the new debt recovery powers. The Bill as drafted would allow a DWP debtor who evades payment and holds an NI or EU licence to be disqualified from driving. However, it inadvertently limits the court’s ability to order that person to produce their licence unless it was issued in Great Britain, undermining the power and causing administrative difficulties for the court and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Government amendment 70 corrects this and ensures parity between GB, NI and EU driving licences under the powers in schedule 6.
Government amendments 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 ensure that the application and limitation period in clause 99 follows the policy intention that the PSFA can investigate fraud and recover debt in England and Wales. Government amendment 44 also ensures that the DWP’s debt recovery powers in this Bill are not limited in Scotland to the usual five-year time limits in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. This makes it clear that the longer 20-year recovery period in Scotland applies to such provisions introduced or amended by this Bill. As I have set out, the intent behind these amendments is to ensure the delivery of the intended policy intent or to ensure the correct territorial application of the Bill.
David Davis
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will forgive me for waiting till what appears to be the end of his list. When the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asked him about the application of the Human Rights Act in this context, he said that the Bill did not breach it, in effect. My advice is a little different, and I waited to hear about his amendments to see whether anything in them changed that. My advice is that suspicionless financial surveillance could breach article 8, which covers the right to privacy, and article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination. Will the Minister make his legal advice on this available to the House? This is incredibly important and it is central to the major criticism of this Bill.
Andrew Western
I have already made clear that I am satisfied with the advice I have received. We will make available all the information we are required to make available, but the right hon. Member will appreciate that I am not able to give an undertaking to release all legal advice at this stage. What I can say to him is that I am very confident that there is no breach of article 8 in particular. That has been explored at length as we have gone through the process.
I welcome the ongoing engagement with industry and key stakeholders. We have made a significant effort to engage all interested parties and listen to their views. That feedback has been important in shaping our approach to the Bill to date and will continue to be so as it moves to the other place.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments about the work of the Bill Committee. We had a constructive few weeks getting into the nitty-gritty.
I have no doubt that the House will agree that fraud is unacceptable, whether against individuals, organisations or the state. The money taken does not belong to those responsible. When it comes to defrauding the Government, money is taken from every single taxpayer. At the same time, however, errors do unfortunately happen. They might be made accidentally by the claimant or by the Department. Although there is no ill intention, errors can still be costly to the taxpayer, and that impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
The question, then, is how best to tackle fraud and error in the welfare state and the public sector. Although we welcome many of the principles behind the Bill—much of which builds on the work of the Conservatives before the general election, as I am sure will be mentioned many times this afternoon—we are concerned that it has been rushed through. On one hand, there are gaps where the legislation is not tough enough. It is not a strong deterrent to make potential fraudsters think again, and it does not sufficiently safeguard public money. On the other hand, parts of the Bill have not been sufficiently prepared, and are incredibly vague and unclear on their implications for those involved and on whether the benefit justifies the cost.
This issue must be considered in the context of a sickness benefit bill that is forecast to hit nearly £1 billion by the end of the decade—even after the Government’s questionable welfare reforms—which is vastly more than we spend on defence, and more than we spend on schools and policing. We have tabled a number of amendments to address those points.
New clauses 21 and 8 seek to tackle the rise in so-called sickfluencers on social media, such as those on TikTok and YouTube who post videos showing people how they might be able to make fraudulent claims for benefits, including the personal independence payment, which requires not medical evidence but self-assessment. As we have heard, the advice offered includes specific buzzwords, template claims and guidance on passing questions at interview stage to inflate the value of claims fraudulently. We do not want to target people who provide genuine advice and guidance to people about how the welfare system and public authorities work, but that is very different from providing assistance and encouragement to commit fraud, which is not acceptable.
We recognise the vital work of not-for-profit organisations such as Citizens Advice—which works right across the country, including in South Hams and Plymouth in my constituency—and groups such as Improving Lives Plymouth. They do much to support those seeking to claim what they are entitled to. However, online sickfluencers must be tackled.
In Committee, the Minister queried our new clause and asked why it provided only for a seven-year prison sentence when similar offences carry a 10-year sentence. We have addressed that in new clauses 21 and 8, which, as the Minister will see, propose a 10-year sentence to bring them into line with similar offences.
Dr Luke Evans
In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.
Rebecca Smith
I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.
We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.
Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.
In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.
New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is great to hear that the hon. Member’s party is committed to taking tougher action against benefit fraud after 14 years of failing in office. Does she also welcome longer sentences for fraud in other areas of Government such as covid corruption, including for those Tory donors who committed the crime?
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not what we are debating; it is certainly not part of my speech.
Our new clauses 11, 12 and 20 are on the impact on banks. We have concerns about the lack of detail in the Bill when it comes to the eligibility verification mechanism and the requirements that will be put on banks and other financial institutions. We do not have the statutory code of conduct. We do not know what it will cost banks. We do not know the results of any pilot schemes, and we do not know whether the amount recovered will be more than what it costs to administer. Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in our Committee, you would know that the code of conduct was probably the thing most frequently commented on, and the Ministers did a huge amount to reassure us that it was forthcoming—
Rebecca Smith
And cheesecake as well—I did not want to say it from the Front Bench, but I have now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to look back at Hansard, but I will never look at a cheesecake in the same way.
The code of conduct was regularly raised in Committee, and we got assurances continually from the Ministers, but we still lack that detail. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments to get clarity, including to require the Government to publish their statutory code of conduct, information on the testing completed to date and an impact assessment on the cost implication of the Bill for banks, as well as an amendment to allow banks to challenge the expansion of these powers if the costs that would be incurred exceed a pre-agreed amount. We know that banks and financial institutions want to help tackle fraud, but measures must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome, or they risk diverting resources from tackling other types of financial crime to meet these requirements. We cannot simply assume that the banks and financial institutions will do what is right; we need to give them an incentive to do it, too.
Our amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 refer to the need for a first-tier tribunal. The Bill takes significant powers for the Secretary of State, giving them the power to review decisions that they, the Cabinet Office or the Public Sector Fraud Authority made. Amendments 16 to 19 change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first tier tribunal, ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just lead back to the organisation that issued the notice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, may I make it clear that I will come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson immediately afterwards?
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I welcome the return of this Bill to the House. I was happy to speak on it on Second Reading, when I welcomed the Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every pound lost to fraudulent claims is a pound that could be spent on the vital public services on which my constituents in Clwyd North rely. It is extremely good to see the recognition of the issue, and the action taken in response to the £7.1 million of fraud and error payments in 2022-23 in Wales alone—that figure is up by £600,000 on the previous year.
The fine-tuning of this Bill is important, and that fine-tuning is done through the Government amendments, which speak to the correct application under devolution settlements, policy intent, the application and limitation of part 3, and the consequential amendments proposed to parent Acts. I was glad to be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered the Bill in more detail, and I throw my weight behind the comments made about how the Bill Committee progressed, and how helpful that was to Committee members. The explanations and expansions by the Ministers served us well and have brought us to where we are today.
I spoke on Second Reading about the distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error, and I am pleased that Government amendments speak to reservations relating to that, and to proportionality. Crucial safeguards will be strengthened to ensure that no one is pushed into undue financial hardship because of debt recovery. Those safeguards include strict affordability checks on recovery payments, and checks on vulnerabilities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I take the hon. Lady’s point about the need to strengthen safeguards, but passing the Bill would mean that we would be extending the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions before we had the opportunity to look at the independent review of the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal and see what reform of the Department was necessary. Does she share that concern?
Gill German
The Bill will protect vulnerabilities where we see them and it is very much a Bill of last resort. It is aimed at people who are not engaging with the DWP on fraud and error cases. Now that carers are aware of the problems that have occurred in the system, we hope that they engage, so I do not believe that the Bill will impact them in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the Bill will protect claimants by enabling early dialogue, which will stop errors sooner and prevent debt building up through genuine mistakes; I initially had a reservation on that point.
It is clearer than ever that the measures are powers of last resort for those who have refused to engage and are able to pay—it is important to emphasise that point. The measures put DWP powers in line with those that already exist for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, and put the importance of the public money spent by those bodies on an equal footing.
The behaviour change that is expected to come as a wider benefit of the Bill is welcome. The Bill encourages debtors to negotiate a repayment plan ahead of using the measures of last resort. Importantly, as has been said, it deters organised fraudsters and those looking to become involved in fraud by ensuring that it is not framed as a victimless crime. It is anything but, because it robs us all of vital money for public services. We are not willing to shrug our shoulders at that, as the Conservative party did at the rising tide of fraud during the covid pandemic and beyond. We must all reinforce the narrative that benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, and our tackling it through the Bill is long overdue.
Throughout the passage of the Bill—in Committee and now on Report—I have been reassured that those who have genuine difficulty navigating the social security system have nothing to fear from the Bill. Indeed, it will raise awareness of the importance of early dialogue. However, I still have concerns about the complexity of the system and how it is administered, as I voiced at Second Reading, but that is for another day. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I will continue to focus on that, as well as having regular dialogue on the subject with my constituents.
To conclude, I welcome the Bill and the fine tuning that has come about through Government amendments passed in Committee. I was pleased to serve on my first Public Bill Committee, and thank the Chairs, Ministers and all involved for its smooth running. I am happy to support the Government amendments put to the House today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I start by assuring the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that my office has talked me out of mentioning the Waitrose cheesecake that was a hot topic throughout Committee. On a more serious note, I would like to explore the challenges in the Bill. As we have heard, fraud can only be a bad thing, as it robs the public purse, but we need to ensure that our approach is proportionate, and that is where the rub is for us, as Liberal Democrats.
First, I want to focus on the covid crisis. We all lived through that, and some of us were in hot seats. I was leader of Torbay council at the time, so it felt as if I was in the eye of the storm for some of those challenges. I am afraid to say that for many of us in this Chamber, it feels as if the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel, given the level of fraud that we saw taking place during the pandemic. The fact that £10 billion-worth of fraud occurred around personal protective equipment is shocking. Some £16 billion of fraud occurred around support for businesses. While it was extremely important that we supported businesses appropriately, the safeguards were extremely limited. One businessman in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got handfuls of £50 notes, filled carrier bags across the town centre, and said to the criminal element, “Come and help yourselves.” The reality is that the money could and should have been put to good use. In my constituency, Torbay hospital is crying out for investment. We have a sewage scandal, and the Environment Agency could be supported in tackling that issue. We also have the cost of living crisis; we could support people in ensuring warmer homes. All that money could help with those things.
A colleague and good friend has already alluded to the carer’s allowance crisis, and the real challenge that it poses. More than 136,000 people—the population of the Torbay unitary authority area—are affected by it. There is some £250 million of cost on those people. We Liberal Democrats fear that the powers in the Bill could make things even tougher for those who have challenges to do with the carer’s allowance.
Members do not have to take it from me that the benefits system is broken; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said that it is. If there is such agreement in Government that the benefits system is broken, why are we adding to this edifice? It is built on a foundation of sand, yet we are looking to pile more responsibilities on to it, without looking for the true, positive culture change in the DWP that we need.
Colleagues have alluded to the areas of debate around the Bill. I will touch on a few major concerns that we Liberal Democrats have. The opportunity that the Bill presents for Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits causes me grave concern.
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman has got to a point on which I wholeheartedly agree with him. Something like 9.8 million people will fall directly under the reach of this Bill; if we include their carers, landlords and a variety of other people, it is more than 10 million people. I would think that the number of fraudsters in that number is very small, but not vanishingly small, so we will put probably more than 9 million people under unnecessary surveillance. He is right to call that Orwellian.
Steve Darling
I concur strongly with the right hon. Gentleman.
Also of core concern to us is the lowering of the bar for being able to take money out of people’s bank accounts, and the opportunity to withdraw driving licences from offenders. However, as colleagues have said, the best practice document is missing. That was alluded to on a number of occasions. It is difficult to understand the true nature of this Bill if we do not know what that guidance will look like.
We also have real challenges around Henry VIII powers. Elements of the Bill should be written into it, but are not, so there are real issues there. We welcome the independent reviewer of the Bill, but the Secretary of State will be able to appoint their own independent reviewer; we do not welcome the Secretary of State effectively marking their own homework by making the appointment themselves.
Big Brother Watch, Age UK and a multitude of other charities have highlighted concerns about the Bill, such as the breakdown in trust that it could cause and the risk of amplifying the challenges faced by people with disabilities. It could also impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as those with learning disabilities. That causes us great concern; Liberal Democrats would like to see a real culture change. In our manifesto, we talked about co-design, which involves working with people who are benefits claimants and people with disabilities to make sure that the system is a better fit and more fit for purpose. As far as we are concerned, taking a more relational approach, rather than an adversarial one, is the way forward.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name. I would like to start, though, by placing on record my thanks to the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), including for his willingness to engage in a discussion on the terms of this Bill. It has been extremely helpful, so I wanted to place that on record.
I also make it clear that my amendments do not in any way seek to undo or frustrate the Government’s legitimate aim of recovering public money from fraudsters and criminals. We absolutely need to do that to ensure that criminal behaviour does not undermine the benefits, legitimacy or standing of our welfare system. The Bill rightly seeks to tackle organised crime and online fraud, but worryingly it also ushers in dangerous new powers compelling banks to trawl through financial information.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I support his amendments. The fact is that millions of innocent people whose behaviour has attracted no suspicion at all will be subject to intrusion into their bank accounts. Is it not odd that there is also access to bank accounts for the £40 billion of tax unpaid by tax avoiders, but that power is rarely used? In the last year for which I have seen figures, 300,000 people were suspected of tax avoidance, but only 1,000 had their banks investigated. Is it not the case that this legislation appears to treat wealthy tax avoiders differently from the poor?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is the very poorest in our society who will be most affected by this legislation. Banks will be able to trawl through financial information even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing—that is the key point in this debate. The very poorest, including disabled people on PIP, older people on pension credit, carers and those on universal credit, will effectively have fewer rights to privacy than everyone else. I am also deeply concerned about the slippery slope of compelling banks to act as an arm of the state.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his amendments. We have the finest legal system in the world, and one of its principles is the presumption of innocence. As drafted, the Bill undermines that fundamental principle, which will raise stress and anxiety and undermine vulnerable people in our society. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the current position with the Bill?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, and I am going to address that point shortly.
It is not the purpose of banks to act as an arm of the state, and compelling them to do so sets a very dangerous precedent that we in this House need to be aware of. We also know that organised crime groups, which are responsible for more than £7 billion of large-scale fraud, will evade detection by spreading funds across multiple accounts, beyond the reach of the algorithmic scanning that will be used to flag overpayments. It will be welfare recipients who are caught up in the net of bank surveillance, regardless of whether they are suspected of fraudulent activity.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That was a very long intervention. Perhaps we would be better off going back to Neil Duncan-Jordan.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will cover the connection between this piece of legislation and the Green Paper shortly.
Neil Coyle
Will the outcome for the individual disabled people my hon. Friend is concerned about—the vast majority of whom commit no fraud—be any different if these measures are implemented? They will not be affected, because they are not committing any crime.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
As I have tried to explain, the Bill introduces fundamental changes to the nature of our welfare system and its use.
David Davis
I am a signatory to amendment 11. In answer to the point that has just been made to the hon. Gentleman, if the banks use algorithms, they will have an error rate of at least 1%. That means 10,000 or more innocent people will be dragged through the system by this proposal.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The right hon. Member brings me to my next point, which is the risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale, given the sheer volume of accounts that will be scanned. That is glaringly obvious. These new powers also strip those who receive state support of that fundamental principle of British law, the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said earlier.
Amendment 11 would ensure that the Government can tackle fraudsters, but would limit the use of an eligibility verification notice to cases where a welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing and not merely of error. That proportionate and necessary safeguard would prevent the corruption of our welfare system, which will turn it from a safety net—meant to offer dignity and support to those in need—into a punitive system, where accessing help comes at the cost of someone’s privacy and civil liberties.
The Bill grants the Department draconian powers to apply to a court to have people stripped of their driving licence if they have an outstanding debt, whether for overpayment, fraud or error. Amendments 10 and 12 would remove that power from the Bill. There are fairer and more effective ways to enforce the law. Analysis of the Bill has shown that where assessment deems that a financial deduction would cause hardship, the debtor can face losing their licence. That is not justice in my view, but a penalty for being poor.
I have heard the claims that this measure will be a last resort when the debtor has failed to engage over a period, but that overlooks the fact that non-engagement can be a symptom of hardship rather than wrongdoing. Many welfare recipients, including those with mental health conditions and caring responsibilities, find it difficult to navigate the complex bureaucracy of our social security system, and may be unfairly deemed not to have engaged with the DWP.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important and necessary to have better legislation to look after people. I doubt that anyone in the Chamber has not been confronted by a constituent who has made an inadvertent mistake. Given the complexity of the paperwork and the reams of questions, it is beyond the ability of most people to respond. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, and that of many others, that if the system continues to be so complicated, it will inadvertently drive people into a position for which they are not responsible?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I agree. I think that the complexity of our system lends itself to errors on the part of individuals who find it extremely difficult to navigate. In Committee, several witnesses explained that people avoid repayment for a variety of reasons, including not knowing where to get help, simply being overwhelmed by the whole process, or facing multiple debts. I hope that the Minister will provide further reassurance on that specific point relating to amendments 10 and 12.
All these challenges will only be made worse if the Government proceed with the planned cuts in disability benefits outlined in the recent Green Paper, which will affect more than 3 million families. The last Government stripped our welfare state to the bone during 14 years of deep cuts—disabled people are already far more likely to be in destitution and to rely on food banks—but spying on millions of people or piling cuts on to a failed system will not repair our welfare model. The Government must pause for thought, meet representatives of disability organisations, and build a fairer system with their consent and confidence. Our welfare state needs to provide support for those who need it, and the change that we promised as a Government must lead to a more compassionate and caring society—one that enables rather than penalises. These are the values that make us different from the last Government, and we should not forget that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It would be helpful if Members tried to confine their speeches to five minutes or so, but I do not propose to introduce a formal time limit yet.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed.
Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system.
This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce
“an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.”
I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11.
We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans. When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time.
I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion. This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition.
On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance.
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman goes right to the point I tried to make with the Minister. There are 25 NGOs supporting amendment 11. It is almost certain that if we go down this route, it will end up in court. I think the Government will lose on article 8, on the question of individual privacy.
John McDonnell
Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge.
What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs. Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here.
We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House.
Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms. We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors.
As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament.
I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages.
Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives. And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it. That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I shall impose, with immediate effect, a four-minute time limit.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
When it comes to public money, everyone accepts the importance of preventing fraud; there is no dispute about that. The mere thought that our benefit system could be exploited loosens the cement holding our welfare system together. However, if we look back in history, there has been a track record of fraud recovery measures not delivering what was hoped. This measure will also probably never save the £1.5 billion that is expected of it, so I ask: will the alleged rewards of this legislation ever match the scale of the imposition on our civil liberties, and are we really going after the right targets?
We all want to catch deliberate and professional fraudsters, but they are precisely the people who are astute enough to change tactics, set up separate bank accounts, and avoid suspicion. Instead, it will be the innocent and the accidental claimants who fall into the trap. The implicit assumption is that we should trust in the DWP as a completely error-free organisation across the entirety of its massive operation. But the DWP does make mistakes. It makes mistakes all the time. And even when it knows that it has made a mistake, and it has been told so, it is very capable of making the same mistake all over again.
In my constituency of Horsham, Anthony and his husband were accused of providing misinformation to the DWP and were overpaid £10,000 as a result. Anthony protested without success. After a long fight the case went to appeal. The tribunal wasted no time deciding in his favour—it was an open and shut case. But then, earlier this year, Anthony and his husband were migrated over to universal credit. After confirming all details were correct, the DWP overpaid them again, and then sought to claw the money back over the following months. The DWP’s mistake, but Anthony pays the penalty.
The DWP has its rules, but real life does not run in straight lines. Real life is messy. How can we possibly rely on the DWP to mark its own homework when we know that there are just four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff?
Yes, there are some checks and balances within this legislation, but what is really needed is a profound cultural change within the DWP, and that is much harder to achieve. The common experience of people who have to deal with the DWP on a daily basis is that they feel that it is always looking to catch them out. Years and years of inflammatory rhetoric under a succession of Conservative Governments have convinced people to regard the DWP as their enemy, not their friend. If anything, the Bill digs that hole a little deeper.
What concerns me most about the Bill is its extreme overconfidence. It assumes that Government agencies always get things right and that individual citizens are to be automatically treated as objects of suspicion. In Committee, the Government were resistant to any amendments except their own, so I very much hope that they will reconsider today and accept the Liberal Democrat amendments.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and new clauses 12 and 15.
Fraud in the benefit system affects us all. It costs us as a country almost £1 million an hour. It takes money from the most vulnerable in society and undermines the legitimacy of and public support for our social security system. However, many of the amendments proposed simply do not recognise the vital need for this legislation. Some, such as amendments 2 and 9, would hamstring the Bill by preventing us gathering key information. Others, such as amendments 8, 5 and 6, would limit the effectiveness of the Bill and make its powers more difficult to use. Others, such as amendments 4 and new clauses 12 and 15, would seek to delay its effects.
These amendments, however differently proposed, all suffer from the same pathology: they fail to take fraud seriously. We have heard a number of speeches today from opponents of the Bill, but we are yet to hear from them any serious practical suggestions about how we might tackle fraud. These opponents say that they are concerned to protect the vulnerable, but I say gently that they can offer no proposals on how to prevent the fraud that is stealing from the neediest in our society.
Many Members are coming from a genuine place of concern about how to strike the right balance between protecting the public purse on the one hand and the privacy and rights of claimants on the other. I think the Bill gets the balance right. The powers it provides are proportionate.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I have limited time, so I will make progress.
The powers the Bill provides are proportionate, measured and ringed with safeguards. It is a mark of this that, as we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Information Commissioner has stated that the Bill as currently drafted has addressed their previously stated concerns.
As well as being proportionate, the powers are necessary to fight the ever-more sophisticated frauds that we are facing. Over the past decade, financial institutions have extensively overhauled their use of technology and data and their approaches to the evolving fraud threat, yet the Government have not. It is illuminating, but perhaps not surprising, that while social security fraud has risen dramatically post covid, fraud volumes and losses in the financial services sector, including credit card fraud, have fallen according to UK Finance. The public sector has paid a steep price for not modernising its anti-fraud approach and failing to adopt industry best practices. It is a gap that this Bill seeks to address.
Most of all, the measures in the Bill are crucial for protecting the vulnerable and safeguarding the legitimacy of the system itself. Our social security system rests on public consent and a belief that money is fairly spent. Fraud and error chips away at this social contract, and it takes money from those who need it most. The public in Hendon and across the country expect us to take action. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about permitting fraud. The only people who benefit are the criminals who exploit our system and those who wish to undermine its role as a cornerstone of a civilised and fair society.
For the sake of the most vulnerable, the taxpayer, fairness and the system itself, I hope the House will join me in supporting the Bill and voting down those amendments.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There continue to be many problems with the Bill, but I recognise that the Minister and his team have had extensive conversations with the Scottish Government and made a number of amendments as a result. I welcome the communication between the two Governments and urge the Minister to ensure that the DWP team have extensive conversations in advance of the coming welfare Bill so that it will not need so many Government amendments on Report for how it interacts with Scottish legislation and Scottish systems.
I turn to new clause 1 on carer’s allowance. It would be completely fair to wait until a review has been done—there needs to be a significant look into that—as clawing back money from people without seeing the results of that review would be incredibly problematic. I am therefore happy to support the new clause.
On sickfluencers, I am concerned that although the shadow Minister has tried to draft new clause 21 to exclude people giving advice, it might unintentionally catch some of those people. On that basis, I am not keen to support it as I would be worried about people who offer genuine advice being caught up in that. However, I understand that she attempted to draft it carefully to try to avoid that.
I would be more than happy to support amendment 11 —the SNP will support it—on the suspicion of wrongdoing. I am thinking in particular about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I was not going to mention the propensity of former MPs to claim things fraudulently, but in looking at who actually costs the taxpayer significant amounts of money, if the Government were to say, “We know that people who hold millions of pounds in offshore trust funds often dodge tax, so we are going to survey all their bank accounts,” I imagine that there would be some sort of uprising, particularly from some wealthier people we are aware of. But because the Government are saying, “It’s cool; it’s just poor people who will be impacted,” we are all expected to assume that this surveillance is fine. It is not fine; it is an absolute imposition on people’s lives. As many have said, it is treating everybody as though they are fraudsters.
Let us look at the amount of money set to be saved. The Government will save less money annually than the DWP makes in overpayments. Rather than imposing on so many people’s civil liberties, surely cracking down on DWP official error overpayments, which would save more money, would be a better place to begin. It is absolutely daft.
I completely agree with new clause 7, tabled by my colleagues the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), particularly in relation to the reasonable expectation that people could understand that they had been overpaid. A constituent contacted me recently because they had a letter telling them that they are to be migrated to universal credit. They are terrified that they will be deported because the word “migrated” was used in that letter. They do not understand the language used by the DWP. Given that universal credit is so complicated to calculate, so many people could not reasonably have been expected to understand that they were being overpaid. The DWP should take that into account before looking at mass surveillance.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing.
In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21. New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious?
The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract. If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society.
Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit.
This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens.
I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics.
If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking.
I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74.
Siân Berry
There is a lot I could say, but I will mainly just commend to Members my new clause 7, which would remove official error from the most punitive measures in the second part of the Bill. I spoke against the whole suite of intrusive legislation in the second part of the Bill on Second Reading, and Green MPs still oppose it now. I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I will be supporting a number of other amendments that I also backed there, alongside the hon. Members from both sides of the House who proposed them. On Second Reading and in Committee I described how the Bill treats already stigmatised benefit claimants as suspects, not citizens, through blanket intrusion and surveillance. It is absolutely wrong that this legislation should go through in this form. I think the first part works, but the second part is absolutely out of order.
New clause 7, tabled in my name, is about fair play. It would bring a test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, so that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let us be in no doubt, mistakes by the DWP can have huge financial and psychological impacts on people who are receiving benefits, and the risk of harm is particularly acute with official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating. I point out that new clause 7 is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act back in 2012, when the Government first started to recover universal credit overpayments.
Turning to a few of the other important amendments before the House today, I restate my support for amendments 2 and 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). These seek simply to remove the totally indefensible bank spying powers. I express my support for amendments 10 and 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), which rightly seek to do away with the driving disqualification powers, which I have previously opposed. I also put on record my support for amendment 11, also in the name of the hon. Member for Poole, which rightly limits the banks’ spying powers to cases with existing suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has taken forward amendments 8 and 9, which I tabled in Committee. My Green party colleagues and I will also be voting for new clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay, on carer’s allowance and lessons learned.
It matters when we treat people who need a safety net as suspects. It matters when Governments invade privacy with a blanket intrusion that affects older people, disabled people and other minorities in a disproportionate way. And it matters that the powers proposed today extend to impoverishing citizens and punishing them for our own Department’s mistakes. Treating people with humanity and due process should be the default setting, not these intrusive new blanket laws, and I hope that Parliament will ask Ministers to dial up the competence, dial down the stigma and think again.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.
Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.
Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is
“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.
Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?
Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. We come to the Front Benches and first the shadow Minister.
Rebecca Smith
With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.
The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.
Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful.
Andrew Western
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. In the time I have, I will try to respond to some of the points raised. I have listened closely to the concerns set out by Members from across the House, and I will of course ensure that they are taken forward as the Bill progresses to the other place, but today I will resist all non-Government amendments. I will make initial comments in response to several Members, before turning specifically to the nature of the amendments and new clauses.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), said that the Bill builds on the previous Administration’s work to tackle fraud and error. I have to say, I think that is a fairly generous interpretation of that work, not least because, as far as I can see, the previous Government introduced absolutely no powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to tackle fraud across the public sector, and, moreover, nothing on debt recovery. The only evidence we can find of any new powers the previous Government sought to introduce is in the eligibility verification space. I accept that they sought to do that, but they did so in a rather botched fashion, which was subject to significant criticism, and with none of the safeguards and oversight in place. We have now built those into the Bill. I absolutely agree with the Opposition spokesperson that the Government cannot be complacent in tackling fraud—and we will not be—but I say gently that, having allowed fraud and error in the welfare system to spiral to £9.7 billion at the time of the last election, the same cannot be said of the previous Government.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spoke of a broken welfare system. I do not want to be drawn into a debate on that, but a broken approach to tackling benefit fraud and error is certainly part of any problem that the Department faces.
Kirsty Blackman
Can the Minister reassure us that no action will be taken to stop social security payments until the human investigation has happened?
Andrew Western
I am happy to provide that assurance; the hon. Member has stolen my next line. I can say categorically that this is a data push only. No decisions will be taken as a direct result, other than a decision to look further into an account, and potentially initiate a human investigation, if needed.
I want to say a little more about amendments 10 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, which relate to driving licences. He rightly said that welfare recipients may not be able to engage with the Department. For the record, nobody in receipt of benefits or paid through pay-as-you-earn employment will be in scope of the debt recovery powers and therefore of the power to suspend driving licences. Where we do seek to suspend someone’s driving licence, it is worth remembering that this is after we have made at least four attempts to contact them through our debt management team, and at least four further attempts through our debt enforcement team, and we have established their ability to repay by looking at three months’ bank statements. If, when we seek to deduct from that bank account, an individual has removed the funds that we know they have, it is only then that we would look into the possibility of suspending their driving licence. Even then, because this is very much a last resort power, we would seek to agree a repayment plan with them right up until the end. The court would set repayment terms if a driving licence was suspended. It is also worth saying that it is always a suspended decision, subject to compliance with an affordable repayment plan set by the court. As I say, this is a power of last resort. I hope colleagues are reassured to hear of the many steps before we reach that point and, most importantly of all, to hear that the power does not apply to current benefit recipients or anybody paid through PAYE employment.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned new clause 11 and the publication of pilot scheme results. I would like to clarify for the House that we are not proposing any further pilot schemes as a result of introducing this legislation. Two pilot schemes have already taken place, so we know that our proposals work. We will be adopting a test-and-learn approach so that we can scale things up. The question of whether this mechanism will yield information that is helpful to us in our inquiries was settled by the previous Government.
Esther McVey
Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety?
Andrew Western
Information of that nature was published prior to Second Reading and is available to Members.
I turn to the amendments and new clauses that attracted the most attention in today’s debate. New clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, pertains to the carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. This Government value carers highly, and recognise the vital and valuable contribution they make every day. Like others, I see that in my constituency work, week after week, and I am in awe of all that carers do.
This Government inherited a system in which busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility, have been left to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We need to understand exactly what went wrong, so that we can set out our plan to put this right. That is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayments, and we were delighted that Liz Sayce agreed to lead that review, which will investigate how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future. The independent review is under way and is anticipated to conclude this summer.
But we are not sitting back; we are taking action now. We continue to review and improve our communication with carers to make it as easy as possible for them to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance entitlement. Moreover, this Government introduced the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced; the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit increased to £196 from 7 April this year. It is now pegged permanently to 16 hours.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Clearly, many carers have been affected by overpayments. Overpayment comes as a shock to many who are trying to work in order to bridge the gap between carer’s allowance and their family’s costs, and it has a significant impact on their mental health. Does the Minister share my gratitude to Liz Sayce for the work that she is doing to hopefully provide clarity for the many carers who are trying to juggle unpaid family care and work?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.
Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended.
Andrew Western
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.
I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.
The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of
“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,
with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.
Andrew Western
I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.
In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.
Andrew Western
I am sorry, but I will not.
Turning to new clause 10, we want to ensure that the Government have access to a wide, appropriate and proportionate range of debt recovery powers, so that we have multiple methods of recovering money from those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so. However, new clause 10 is not required, as equivalent action is already provided for through existing legislation for the DWP, and by clause 16 of this Bill for the PSFA. Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts. In addition, there are direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill, which could include liability orders.
I have largely covered amendment 11. In closing, I want to make a few observations about amendments 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), but spoken to by other Members. In my view, those amendments would reduce the effectiveness of our debt recovery powers as proposed in the Bill, so I cannot agree to them. I recognise the importance of dialogue with customers all the way through the journey of debt recovery. As I set out in response to the concerns about the revocation of driving licences raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we will seek to engage with people at all stages of the journey. If we identified any vulnerabilities, we would cease recovery, and at all stages we would look to agree an affordable repayment plan.
I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and I thank them again for their contributions. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, and those who provided written evidence. Finally, I extend my thanks to the Clerks, the House staff and civil servants who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.
For too long, too little effort has been made to get a grip on public sector fraud, resulting in the totally unacceptable levels that we see today. With this Bill, we are taking the powers needed to act and to finally take the fight to the crooks and the con artists, from criminal gangs attacking our welfare system to covid fraudsters who stole from hard-working people in a time of national emergency.
This Bill is critical. It will save us billions of pounds, and it is part of a broader package in the Department to save £9.6 billion for the DWP by 2030. I hope that all Members feel able to support it today.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.
It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.
Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.
The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.
I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.
People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every penny of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud or error is money wasted, so we Conservatives support many of the measures outlined in the Bill, not least those that continue the hard work done by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions prior to the general election. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that every penny they raise in taxation is spent well. That is fair to taxpayers, who have worked hard to earn that money. When it comes to welfare, at the heart of our system must be the principle that Government support should go only to those for whom it is intended. Every penny that does not undermines the entire system. It erodes public trust and support. That has put support for some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk. That is why, in government, we did the groundwork for the clauses of the Bill that enable banks to help crack down on fraudsters, recognising that while the state should never be able to see what someone spends their money on, it should be able to check whether they are entitled to the money that they are claiming.
The amendments we have tabled to the Bill are constructive, so I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support them. Videos from sickfluencers are hard to avoid when searching online about benefits, but rather than helping people to claim something that they may need and should rightly receive, the videos tell people how to game the system. We want taxpayers to get their money back, even if it has already been spent. Why should we tolerate people using social media platforms to help others commit fraud, and to help them cheat the tests that are there to ensure that support goes to those who need it? Why should someone who has committed fraud be able to keep their high-end television or luxury car, just because they spent their ill-gotten gains before the Department got to them? We are clear that both those things should be tackled, but sadly Labour has shown itself to be on the side of the fraudsters.
As I said at the outset, we back the overall purpose of the Bill and much of its content, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the other place will take note of the constructive approach we have taken and the arguments made, particularly those made so articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) today and in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill improved before it may become law.