Lords Chamber

Tuesday 21st October 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Developing a rolling stock strategy for Great British Railways
-

Second oral question. Baroness Pidgeon.
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

rolling stock strategy for the competitive rolling stock industry that we established over the last decade or so. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Noble Lords recollection of what happened in his term of office might be quite good, but the fact is that be quite good, but the fact is that the industry doesn't have much regard for what was published at the end of the term of the previous government and is actively and interestingly, waiting for something which relates to a real future, which is related to the age of the rolling stock and future usage. There are currently already three live procurements in the market for rolling stock, which will be referred to in in in the in the publication of the Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Strategy, which I expect to be next summer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my Lords. My Lords in in the North East, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords in in the North East, we rejoice at the success of the reinstated Northumberland Line linking Ashington to Newcastle, linking Ashington to Newcastle, which has seen over 700,000 journeys since the line was reopened last since the line was reopened last December. But my Lords, this this particular route struggles with a lack of carriages because they'd lack of carriages because they'd like to put more trains on. So can I ask the noble Lord, the minister, ask the noble Lord, the minister, whether the strategy will seek to prioritise regions in our country which have traditionally been which have traditionally been underinvested in so to fast forward economic growth that the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so desires. The. If that's an answer, I'll sit and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If that's an answer, I'll sit and listen to it. The right reverend listen to it. The right reverend prelate is correct that the new line to Ashington is a success. Northern trains are resolving to put additional rolling stock on those additional rolling stock on those trains. Now they are able to do that at certain times of the day. But one at certain times of the day. But one of the procurements that I referred to is for 464 vehicles for northern, which replaces a large and elderly fleet of existing diesel trains over the next several years.

And that will result in enough rolling stock to satisfactorily serve demand on the Ashington line and indeed on other routes.
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Negotiations with the European Union for the UK to rejoin Erasmus+
-

Third or a question Baroness cousins. question.
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:23
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to prepare for such. Disruptions in the future?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend, for those questions, there is no evidence that this was caused by any malicious activity. And we've got to be very careful that we do not speculate otherwise. AWS has publicly stated the outage was initially caused by an issue with its configuration of the Domain Name System, or DNS, as we know it, and some wider related complications. Now, departments independently determine which suppliers to use based on their own use cases. Some cloud providers are strategic suppliers, but departments make decisions on adoption based not only on resilience but on cost, capability and their staff expertise.

Now, my Lords, we are working to diversify the UK's cloud ecosystem and encourage greater participation by UK based and European providers, as well as promoting innovation through our digital infrastructure and cybersecurity programmes. My Lords, at the same time, the NCC offers advice and guidance on how businesses and organisations can make themselves more cyber resilience, and this advice is also broadly applicable to digital resilience issues. My loss, as I mentioned in last week's oral question, I mean, businesses also take it upon themselves to ensure that they do have sufficient cyber resilience systems in place by ensuring that their software and hardware is up to date and at the same time, if they can, to seek certification so that the systems are cyber essentials certified at the same time, businesses should also be encouraged to have actually a business continuity plan so that if anything happens, they have a plan in place.
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Well, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the end of the day, I think businesses has to also take upon businesses has to also take upon themselves their responsibilities towards in the future cyber attacks. And whether, like I said, the And whether, like I said, the infrastructure and digital framework is in a secure from any such attacks is in a secure from any such attacks and all that. I'm a firm believer. I mean, before I came to this house, when I was running various when I was running various businesses, the first thing I did was to ensure that we had a comprehensive risk assessment as to whether it our system will be attacked.

And at the same time, we also ensured that not only do our also ensured that not only do our website and software source codes are actually so large with an escrow account to protect it further, so that in case anything happens, we can get access to those source codes. And I would urge businesses codes. And I would urge businesses to ensure that the systems are compliant with the latest patches, compliant with the latest patches, security patches and, if possible, to actually get these Cyber Essentials certified so that they Essentials certified so that they can have confidence that the systems is actually protected from any such attacks.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

attacks. My Lords. It seems to me that I'm going to be up and down on my feet like a jack in the box for the next few items of business. This, therefore, may be a suitable time for noble
15:38
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, the noble Lord will know very clearly that there are certain threats provided by the Chinese government, self-evidently. And those threats are well known, well understood and well assessed by the Home Office under the government departments. But also the China remains the one of the largest economies in the world. We import and export and deal with China on a number of issues. Well and therefore well, I'm giving the noble Lord the answer that I will give him to whatever he is asked.

And I'm saying to him, now that we recognise there are certain threats in China, we recognise there are certain issues with the Chinese government that we need to address, but we also recognise that there are major trading partners that we need to work with. And on the question of the embassy, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have submitted evidence from their perspective about the nature of the embassy. There is a planning application being undertaken and that planning application will be considered in due course.

Following a report by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. That's the right and proper way to undertake that instance. The Prime Minister is very cognisant of the fact that there are opportunities with China, but there are also threats, and that's why we have to keep all these matters under constant review. That answer may not satisfy the noble Lord, but that's the answer I've given him. I was the chair of the. chair of the.
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
the support of the noble Lord, Lord Volks of Harridan. They concern the crucial question of ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the extensive and extensive investigatory and enforcement powers granted under this bill. The bill sets out to create a powerful investigatory body with wide authority, but the lines of accountability are unclear. The first of these amendments routes the power, the exercise of the powers provided for in this part of the bill, firmly within the framework of the act itself, it makes clear that investigatory and enforcement powers under sections three, seven, 17 and 38 covering information, notices, entry and seizure powers, direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings.

Orders may not be exercised except as expressly provided for in this section. This is, My Lords, a vital safeguard. It ensures that these powers cannot be used arbitrarily or for purposes beyond those envisaged by Parliament. In essence, it ties the use of such powers to the functions and the objectives clearly defined elsewhere in the bill. Preventing mission creep, ensuring accountability and anchoring their use in clear statutory purpose. The Second Amendment, which is closely related, builds upon that principle of restraint by setting out a clear system of authorisation, accountability, and recordkeeping, it would require that the most serious powers those involving access to personal financial information, entry and search of premises, or the recovery of large sums of money can only be exercised with explicit ministerial approval.

My Lords, this is not just bureaucracy, it is responsibility. It makes ministers ministers answerable for the exercise of powers in their name. Other powers of a lesser nature would require sign off at senior civil service level or above, ensuring that every exercise of authority is subject to appropriate scrutiny and senior oversight. In addition, the PFA would be required to maintain a register recording each use of these powers. The data nature of the action, the official or minister who authorised it, and the justification for doing so that register would then be laid before Parliament annually.

My Lords, if we are to give such considerable powers to civil servants acting on behalf of ministers, then we must be absolutely certain that there are clear lines of responsibility and clear records of decision making. Without those, we risk creating a dangerous vacuum of accountability. And let us be clear, the significant new powers which this bill grants to officials are not powers to be taken lightly. They go to the heart of personal privacy, financial autonomy and potentially due process under this amendment is certain.

Especially intrusive powers such as requiring the disclosure of personal financial records, applying for search and seizure warrants, or imposing deduction orders over £10,000. Would require explicit approval from a minister of the Crown. This ensures that decisions with the potential to impact individuals lives in a profound way are not taken in isolation by junior officials. Because, my Lords, if something goes wrong, if those powers are misused or abused, it will not be the officials who are hauled before select committees or public inquiries.

It will be the Minister for the Cabinet Office who is called upon to account for actions taken in his or her name, actions of which they may have had absolutely no knowledge. It is therefore vital that the Minister is satisfied that the action is justified, and is willing to stand behind that decision if challenged. This line of accountability is crucial for proper oversight, and it also protects the Minister. We have seen through painful and enduring examples like the horizon scandal, what happens when the chain of accountability between operational decision makers and ministers is allowed to break down? Victims are left without recourse.

Officials retreat into anonymity and ministers are left to apologise for decisions they did not make and could not have prevented. And we should learn from that experience. We should ensure that the exercise of coercive state powers, particularly powers as sensitive as these, are traceable, reviewable and ultimately answerable to Parliament. These amendments were well received and supported by noble Lords across the House. At committee, I want to thank again the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for adding his name and to other noble lords who supported these proposals.

My Lords, these amendments protect the Minister, they protect the department, and they protect the individuals who may be subject to these powers. They ensure that no power is used without proper authorisation, that every use is recorded, and that Parliament can see each year how these powers have been exercised and by whom. We support the government's ambition to tackle fraud and error in the public sector. But we must always remember that power without responsibility breeds mistrust. This is not an abstract constitutional point.

It is a matter of basic fairness, of good governance, and of trust and public administration. For those reasons, my Lords, this amendment is of vital importance. It provides the clear lines of authority and accountability that must underpin any responsible use of the significant powers contained in this bill. The government may say that safeguards already exist, but those safeguards are internal, opaque and unenforceable by Parliament. What we are proposing here is a statutory framework for oversight, one that gives ministers clarity, parliament visibility and the public reassurance that power is being exercised carefully, lawfully and transparently.

This amendment is not about obstructing the government's aims. It is about protecting them and protecting the integrity of the system we are building. I beg to move.
15:59
15:59
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this bill creates a wide range of. Unprecedented and intrusive powers for both the Cabinet Office and DWP throughout Cabinet Office and DWP throughout the course of the Bill to date, and indeed in its previous incarnation, under the last government, my focus has been on trying to ensure that these powers are restricted to what is actually required for the purposes of dealing with fraud

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against the public. Sector. And to ensure that there are appropriate and strong safeguards appropriate and strong safeguards against overreach and overuse of these powers. And I should start by saying, I do recognise and acknowledge that the government has acknowledge that the government has introduced a lot of safeguards into the bill compared to those we had when we were discussing the similar when we were discussing the similar messages. Measures under the aborted Data Protection and Digital Information Bill last year. This is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Information Bill last year. This is a much better bill, but it does still introduce a wide range of new powers. And whilst better, there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And whilst better, there. Are still areas where I. Think the safe. Safeguards should be improved, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular, when creating powers of this nature, it's important that. The safeguards. Should be. On the. Face of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And not. Left to. Codes of practice or. Internal departmental rules, both of which departmental rules, both of which can be changed without scrutiny. And we'll come back to that theme I think, several times later today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think, several times later today. These two amendments cover the police powers. That the bill would give to the. Cabinet Office and the Public. Sector.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sector. Fraud Authority. Now, I have serious doubts as to whether it is genuinely necessary to give search, genuinely necessary to give search, entry and seizure. Police powers to civil servants anyway. But if we are civil servants anyway. But if we are to do so, it's essential that there are very robust safeguards around their use. So these two amendments, which have already been well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, simply define who may use the powers, particularly ensuring that serious use of them requires explicit ministerial authorisation, and ensures that the use of the powers of robustly recorded and reported upon.

I think those are, at the very least, safeguards that should be in place, so I am happy to support them wholeheartedly, and I very much hope the noble Baroness will seek the approval of the House for them. My Lords, the amendments, as has been so clearly stated by Baroness Finn and by Lord rooks. Concern ministerial and parliamentary oversight. And it's the oversight that's important. Or the oversight that's important. Or the powers granted to authorised officers for reclaiming finances under this act.

Now, these amendments would require, as been stated by other noble Lords, that a stated by other noble Lords, that a minister of the Crown authorise the use of such powers where the amount use of such powers where the amount involved exceeds £10,000. This would also in oblige the Public Sector also in oblige the Public Sector Fraud Authority to maintain a register of instances in which these powers are exercised, with the powers are exercised, with the relevant Minister required to lay a copy of this register before Parliament.

On these benches. We have been critical throughout the passage of the Bill or the broad, passage of the Bill or the broad, and in some cases inadequately checked powers really described by checked powers really described by the noble Lord, walks now granted recover funds require identified perhaps as. perhaps as.
16:02
16:03
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, while I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, the reality of their drafting would give ministers the ability to block politically inconvenient investigations. They would prevent counter fraud enforcement at any kind of scale, and they would expose the identities of civil servants investigating serious criminals. On that basis, we cannot accept them, although we cannot agree to these amendments. It might surprise the noble lady that I believe there is a lot that we do agree on. We agree that the measures in this bill are powerful and must be used with care.

We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and we agree that there must be robust oversight, both internal and external. That is essential with regards to ministerial oversight. For as long as the powers sit in the Cabinet Office, that they will be exercised in the name of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. But these amendments go beyond accountability. They bring the Minister into specific operational decisions. It is not appropriate to mandate that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is brought into hundreds of operational decisions in the way that these amendments suggest.

First, ministers must be free to delegate or the work of government will grinds to a halt. Your all ships house would be rightly concerned if Cabinet Office ministers, who need to be making government more effective and efficient, were spending their days taking detailed counter fraud operational decisions. Secondly, it would be inappropriate for ministers of whichever party happens to be in power to be taking operational decisions on enforcement and individual enforcement cases that would make enforcement political. It would necessarily expose every case to charges of political interference.

It would place all this ministers in an invidious position. It would give dishonest ministers the power to block investigations that are politically inconvenient. But the noble lady is right that ministers should know what is happening in their name. Ministers are accountable and must therefore choose how these powers should be dedicated, not simply hand them over to civil servants and forget about them until a crisis occurs, which I know is a genuine concern. So in response to the noble lady's challenge, let me set out what ministers will do before any of these powers are used.

My Lords ministers will scrutinise the set up of the PSA for its plans to use the powers, the oversight arrangements in place in the skills and experience of authorised officers and authorised investigators. Also, ministers will decide what thresholds they wish to set and what constraints they wish to place around the exercise of powers in their name. My Lords ministers will decide what reports they want to receive and their frequency. Also, ministers will decide how they wish to appoint authorised officers and authorised investigators, and will take a strong interest in the training and experience and professionalism of these staff.

Finally, ministers will be accountable to your lordships House and the other place to show that they have done this and I am happy to commit to ministers bringing forward a statement before the powers are first used to demonstrate that these commitments have been fulfilled. And every time there is a change of minister, officials will ask for the new minister's view on these questions, not silently continue them. Out of sight, as I know, is a genuine concern for the noble lady. Noble.

The noble lady is absolutely right to draw attention to how dedication works in government. It is for ministers who are accountable to decide on the appropriate delegation. Turning now to the seniority of civil servants provided for in subsection one B by requiring senior civil servant to sign off for every use of powers. In part one, the noble lady is setting the bar for internal authorisation too high. At the moment, the SFA's enforcement unit is relatively small. I love the use of the relatively.

It's not large. So for example, the numbers of information notices envisaged in a year could all be reviewed by a senior civil servant. But we are making this legislation to last decades, and its operation can't be contingent on keeping our capacity to pursue public sector fraudsters, small at any scale, requiring excessive civil servant grading in legislation is a strict operational limitation and unnecessarily expansive expensive. That is why those who use these powers successfully elsewhere in government, such as the HMRC, do not have the these requirements either in their legislation or their practice, because it is not the Grange that matters.

It is the skills, experience and professionalism. Authorised investigators and authorised officers in the PSA will all be members of the government. Counter for profession. They will undergo bespoke training on top of the previous knowledge, skills and experience they bring to the role. Current members of the PSA. PSA enforcement units bring a wealth of experience with them. They include former police officers, customs officers and other civil servants who have worked in industry roles across a number of departments. Noble Lords have been clear during this discussion that they are particularly concerned about the use of Pace powers.

Let me remind your lordships House that this is the courts that will authorise any application of the PSA that the PSA makes under pace. No civil servant of any grade, nor any minister, can authorise a search warrant or a production order under pace. Only the court can authorise such actions each and every time we seek to use them. This means that the PSA must be able to demonstrate to the court satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence of fraud has been committed against a public authority and, as set out on pace itself, reasonable grounds to believe that the material sought is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation.

My Lords, substantial value. This means that the subject of an application has the protection of a court scrutiny before authorised investigators can execute a warrant or a production order. Moreover, the powers in the bill are subject to review by an independent person as specified under clause 65. I have committed to ensuring that the independent person is passed. All the concerns raised by parliamentarians, including those we have heard today, and the PSA will be subject to inspections by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

Inspection reports will be made publicly available and will be laid before Parliament's. The final point I would like to address is the question of maintaining a register, which has to be laid before Parliament. We will, of course, be keeping meticulous records of how and when powers are used. That would be a bare minimum for good investigative investigatory practice. These records will be made available to the independent reviewer, who will report on the use of the powers to Parliament, ensuring democratic oversight.

But laying this register before Parliament carries significant risks. It may compromise ongoing cases and expose the identities of investigators to dangerous individual individuals, jeopardising their safety and the integrity of the justice system. My Lords, can we remember that we are talking about people who undertake criminal activity, typically online in some of these cases, and publishing the names of the investigating officers could make them vulnerable. And with regards to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn and the appalling horizon scandal, I want to take this opportunity to reassure noble lords and remind nobles that the scandal was based on private prosecutions, that the SFA won't undertake.

My Lords, I understand the noble ladies concerns, and I have set out how ministers will act in an effort to assuage them. But this amendment cannot stand. It would allow dishonest ministers to block politically inconvenient investigations. It would make counter fraud enforcement at any scale impossible, and would expose the names of officials to the fraudsters they are investigating. I urge the noble lady to withdraw her amendment.
16:11
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. reply. But I must be absolutely clear that we are not satisfied with that. The tests we have set out have been met, and with the responses received, the government asks this House to confer upon the Public Sector Fraud Authority powers that are extraordinary in scope, powers to compel information, to enter premises, to seize property, and to reach directly into private finances of individuals. They are powers that in any other context would belong to the police.

And we have voiced in the noble Lord law books to as has also voiced reservations about granting police powers to civil servants in this instance. But our amendments seek to provide a clear statutory foundation for the exercise of those investigatory enforcement powers, ensuring that they are explicitly bound by the structures and intentions set out by Parliament. They provide a clear chain of accountability from the official who exercises the power through the minister who authorises it to the Parliament.

That must ultimately answer for it. And I'm hearing the noble baroness, the minister, talking about, you know, dishonest ministers choosing to block an investigation. But ultimately, if the minister chooses to block an investigation, that is a decision for the minister who is responsible for the public finances and who will be accountable in Parliament for his or her decision. And it's not about putting ministers in charge of operations. The, the clear purpose behind these amendments, as I say, is to create a clear chain of accountability for great powers, because that clarity matters.

That's how responsible government works, and that's how public confidence is earned and sustained. Instead, what the government is proposing leaves the PFA largely insulated from meaningful scrutiny. It gives immense authority to civil servants while shielding their actions from the transparency and parliamentary visibility that such authority demands. And that is not proportionate oversight. The recent China espionage scandal has laid bare the dangers of confusion and obfuscation. When questions of accountability and responsibility are left unresolved. These amendments would provide the structure and safeguards that the bill so plainly lacks.

They do not remove powers, but they make those powers defensible. When we are dealing with an authority that will routinely exercise serious and far reaching powers, there can be no room for ambiguity. We must have clarity about who is responsible, who is accountable, and where the lines of authority lie. These amendments provide that certainty. They embody the minimum requirements for a just and serious law. My Lord, we have tried at every stage of this bill to work constructively with the government, and I appreciate the engagement we have been given.

But the state must be equipped to confront fraud in a way that preserves trust. That trust is earned through transparency and accountability. That these amendments offer a constructive and proportionate way to embed those principles into this bill. We have a duty to ensure that power is never granted, that power is never granted with account without accountability, and that no one, how ever well intentioned, operates beyond the reach of ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny. And for that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that amendment 27 be agreed with? Many that opinion will
16:14
None Portrait Division
-

say content contrary, not content? The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the House division. I will notify the House when voting is open. when voting is open. Which is now open. Clear the bar. Yes. Yes. The Yes. The people. Of. This country. Can find.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is it amendment 27 be agreed, as many of that opinion will say? Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say? Content. To the country. Not content? Thanks. The contents will go to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Here, here. Yes, Here, here. Yes, yes, Here, here. Yes, yes, I Here, here. Yes, yes, I did

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Yes, yes, I did Here, here. Yes, yes, I did not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Yes, yes, I did not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Yes, yes, I did not. See, I see. You. Looking something. See, I see. You. Looking something. Will you come on. I did not hear Again Will. Will. Not. Next Next to Next to the. Next to the. Yes, Yes, yes, Will Will rise Will rise again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 27

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Chair, Chair, and Chair, and agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The have The have voted The have voted contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The have voted contents 270, The have voted contents 270, not contents 160. The contents have it. contents 160. The contents have it. Amendment 28 moved formally. The question is at amendment 28. We agreed as many that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendments 29 to 33 moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to on block, as amendments be agreed to on block, as many of our opinion will say.

Content the contrary not content. The contents have it become now to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it become now to amendment 34. Baroness. Sherlock. My Lords.
16:27
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I now turn to amendments 34, 36,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now turn to amendments 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 14. This group of amendments addresses some concern we have heard throughout the passage of have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, most recently by the noble lady Baroness Finn. During growing Committee, that the enforcement unit being part of the Cabinet Office means that there is limited oversight and accountability of the use of powers in part one of the Bill. But that setting up the SFA's Enforcement unit as a standalone statutory body would be disproportionate.

While it is still small. Whilst I strongly believe that the PSC has established a robust oversight provision and built a multitude of safeguards into this legislation as well as their processes and structures, I am aware of how complicated and contentious this space is, particularly in respect of protecting the public from the misuse or incorrect use of powers. So we have tabled this group of amendments to enable the SFA and the powers in this Bill to be to be merged with another statutory body, rather than necessarily being set up as a standalone statutory authority, sorry, statutory body.

Although the power to do save as a to do so remains, this builds flexibility into the legislation to achieve the same aim in terms of separation between the investigators and ministers in future, but avoids the need to set up an entirely new statutory body if it is not considered proportionate to do so. Importantly, this would enable the SFA's enforcement unit to be moved at arm's length from ministers sooner, adopting the protections and governance and accountability set out in central two of the bill.

As the government has said during the passage of the bill, it is not proportionate to set up a new standalone Alb for a small enforcement unit. These amendments allow for even a relatively small unit to be placed at arm's length from ministers if desired, without incurring disproportionate overheads. Ministers also have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure public money is spent judiciously, and where it is most needed. It is counter to government policy to establish a new statutory body when its functions should be undertaken by existing bodies.

Building in this flexibility through these amendments enables us to achieve the same policy intent without necessarily adding to the proliferation of albas when it is the right time to establish the SFA's enforcement unit at arm's length from ministers, that will only happen with engagement, debate and agreement of both Houses of Parliament. My Lords, your lordships House has spoken and we have listened. I beg to move these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member. Proposed clause 70, page 37, line 28. Leave out from provision to end of line 31 and provision to end of line 31 and insert as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, we do give this amendment a partial welcome. It amendment a partial welcome. It speaks to the principle, to a principle that we on these benches have consistently raised in relation have consistently raised in relation to the formation and constitution of the public sector. Broad authority. The changes proposed shared that the PSA should be established through affirmative regulations rather than by simple commencement, is certainly a step in the right direction. It introduces an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny and prevents the authority from being created entirely at the discretion of the minister.

That is an improvement, and we are pleased to see it reflected in this amendment. However, this provision addresses only the beginning of the story at the moment of establishment, but it the moment of establishment, but it does not address the far more fundamental questions about how the PSA will operate once it is up and PSA will operate once it is up and running, and how it will exercise the very considerable powers conferred by this bill. This conferred by this bill. This amendment speaks to the PSA being set in motion.

So our concern is what happens once the wheels are what happens once the wheels are turning. We have tabled amendments elsewhere to explore those issues in more detail, and I shall not detain the House by rehearsing them all at this stage. But I do want to touch briefly on one key point, which is accountability. In our view, it is it is vital that the PSA, in carrying out its functions and exercising its investigatory powers, remains directly and properly accountable to ministers, and ministers, in turn, must be in a position to answer truthfully and fully in these houses, or a select committee or an inquiry for the actions taken in their name.

That chain of responsibility cannot be allowed to become blurred or detached, as the Bill currently proposes. What? When we are dealing with powers of this magnitude, powers that reach across government affect individual citizens and involve the use of sensitive information. Direct accountability is a constitutional necessity. So while we welcome this first step from the government, and what we ultimately need is not accountability only on day one, but accountability from day one and every day thereafter. My Lords are no. Previous day in committee, I indicated that I would consider alongside my noble friend Lord Junker, the assurances given to us by the name of Baroness, the Minister on the review of pace powers, specifically within the Cabinet Office section, which we discussed in amendment 35.

Having done so, and I know that amendment, I believe amendment 35 would be called after this group. Having done so, I am assured on the back of what the noble Baroness set out last week that our concerns in this area have been met, and I am not, therefore, intending to push this matter to a division. I want to thank the noble lady for working with us on this point to ensure that the independent reviewer, in part one, has the power to assess the use of Pace powers and whether it meets the metrics that we set out.
16:33
16:34
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for the level of support that is available to right support that is available to right from the old order. I think it would be helpful just to confirm that any statutory body, regardless of where statutory body, regardless of where the PFA ultimately ends up, the PFA the PFA ultimately ends up, the PFA as a as an entity, will publish public annual reports on its operations, including the use of new powers in the bill, as well as the powers in the bill, as well as the findings of reviews on the use of these powers.

Should the PFA transition to either a standalone statutory body or be merged with an existing arm's length body, it will be required by the bill to produce an annual report for the relevant minister, who would then lay it before Parliament. My Lords, we have put significant safeguards in this legislation and have listened to the debate both at committee and report to make sure that as many safeguards to make sure that as many safeguards as we can are added. These amendments will provide important flexibility regarding the future of the PFA.

When she's put on the statutory footing, they address concerns we have heard through the concerns we have heard through the passage of this bill about the oversight and accountability of the enforcement unit whilst in the Cabinet Office, and the Cabinet Office, and the disproportionate disproportionality of setting up a new Alb while the unit remains small. I therefore hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unit remains small. I therefore hope the Noble Lords will provide your support to these amendments, and I beg to move them. The question is that the amendment 34 be agreed. So many of that opinion will say content in the country, not content if you don't have them at 35 not moved amendments 36 to 40 moved formally down to Sherlock. The question is that amendments 36 to 40 degree to unblock as many that opinion will say. Content with country not content.

The contents have it become now to amendment 41. Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to remove government amendments 41, 42, 43,
16:35
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
government amendments 41, 42, 43, 64, 1890 and 111. Under current devolution arrangements, DWP administers certain devolved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government. amendments. Will ensure that the expanded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will ensure that the expanded information gathering powers introduced in this Bill will also be available to Scottish Ministers, should they require them in the should they require them in the future. This follows confirmation from the Scottish Government that they would like the updates to these they would like the updates to these powers to apply to them too. These amendments will also ensure necessary changes are made to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DWP debt recovery powers in this bill. As drafted. In clause 91, the UK government is also seeking powers to apply new recovery methods to debts of certain devolved benefits delivered under agency agreements. However, the Scottish Government has confirmed it does not wish these new recovery methods to be applied to devolved methods to be applied to devolved benefits administered by DWP through. Agency arrangements. Taking the amendments in term, Government Amendment 41 simplifies clause 73, reflecting how it was originally reflecting how it was originally introduced with new section 109 Bza now containing the expanded power to issue information notices to any information holder as part of a DWP criminal fraud investigation, and criminal fraud investigation, and ensuring that Scottish Ministers will have access to these equivalent expanded powers in the event that expanded powers in the event that Scottish Ministers deliver any benefits covered by the 1992 act.

Government amendments 42 and 43 made. Clause 74 update The Social Security Fraud Act 2001, aligning it with the new powers and ensuring that the requirement to issue a code of practice and the ability to make payments for information also apply properly to Scottish Ministers. Government amendment 90 to close to 91 reflects the position of the Scottish Government on the DWP debt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recovery powers. It ensures that the Scottish Government retains control over how debts. Relating to its.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Relating to its. Devolved benefits are recovered. Once these agency agreements come to Once these agency agreements come to an end, it will be for the Scottish Government to determine its own approach to debt recovery, including establishing new powers if establishing new powers if necessary. Finally, Government Amendment. 111 to clause 101

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. 111 to clause 101 confirms that clauses 73 and 74 are. Treated as pre commencement enactments for the purposes of. The Scotland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Scotland. Act 1998, enabling Scottish Ministers to use these updated powers for fraud investigations in powers for fraud investigations in relation to devolved benefits. It also confirms that the provision in also confirms that the provision in clauses 96 and 97 relating to cost recovery and data protection apply to Scottish Ministers existing debt to Scottish Ministers existing debt recovery powers and amendments 80 and 64 update the clause references and 64 update the clause references in clause 85 and schedule three.

As a consequence of these changes, but Lords, having outlined the case for Lords, having outlined the case for these amendments, I hope Northern Noble Lords will accept them so we can fulfil our agreements with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can fulfil our agreements with the Scottish Government. I beg to move. Those. Leave out clause 73 and insert the following new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. And my Lords, these on on these benches we welcome the agreement which reached with devolved administrations. May this be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lesson to people around the world how to deal with devolved administrations, at least. In this case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this case. The in this group relate to how the powers and the act specifically the powers and the act specifically refer to Scotland. Amendment 41, together with the amendments across 74 and the replacement of clause 101 and others, reverses. And I would stress that reverses the changes made in the House of Commons. This, I gather, follows confirmation of I gather, follows confirmation of the Scottish Ministers that they wish to changes to the Secretary of wish to changes to the Secretary of State's functions regarding information notices to apply to them information notices to apply to them as well.

It seems to be a positive movement of administrations working
16:39
16:40
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
in earlier clauses, in particular those concerning the new powers to issue information notices under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and to clarify that the new methods of recovery introduced under this bill will not apply to devolved benefits. In that sense, these amendments are essentially technical in nature, as the noble Baroness has said, ensuring consistency across the United Kingdom and confirming that the devolved benefit system in Scotland remains outside the scope of the new recovery powers. We appreciate and support the clarification.

However, while the amendments themselves are straightforward, they do raise some wider questions about the relationship between the UK and devolved administrations in this area, and it is somewhat surprising that these changes have had to come forward as government amendments at this relatively late stage of the bill, when one might have expected such matters to have been settled at the drafting stage through earlier consultation and agreement with the Scottish Ministers. And now the government has placed great story over the past year in stating that they seek to improve the communications and trust between the UK government and the devolved nations.

So can the noble Baroness, the Minister give us an update on how they view progress on these changes and indeed, what has actually changed in the last year? So while we do not oppose these amendments, indeed, we welcome the fact that the necessary legislative consent has now been secured. It does prompt reflection on the importance of ensuring that such engagement happens promptly and systematically in future. The relationship between the UK and devolved government works best when issues of competence and application are identified and agreed well in advance, rather than being corrected through amendments on report.

That said, I would be grateful if the Minister could take this opportunity to update the House on the government's current assessment of the risk of fraud in relation to devolved benefits and on what engagement has taken place with the devolved administrations to address that risk. Can she also tell us what steps she is aware of in those authorities taking steps to tackle fraud within their systems, and how information sharing or coordination between the UK government and the devolved governments is being managed to ensure that fraud risks are tackled effectively across all jurisdictions.

So, as I say, my Lords, we are content to support these amendments, which brings Scotland into line with the rest of the UK where appropriate and while respecting the devolved settlement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and maintaining clarity over responsibilities in the fight against fraud. My Lords.
16:42
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I am ungrateful. Firstly to the noble Viscount for his kind words, and I too have enjoyed the engagement we have had across the house. It may, I think it shows how the Lords can really make a constructive contribution to the scrutiny of. Legislation in relation to the points made in the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. It's quite right when we have a developed and developing devolution situation in the UK, and I think we are, we are showing that it is possible for, for different jurisdictions to make different judgements and to find ways of co-existing peacefully.

And we are very glad to be able to do that. And I thank him for flagging that up. In terms of the timing of this, I'm advised that it is routine for these matters to be resolved at this point in the process, but just to reassure the House that our officials have engaged with their Scottish counterparts throughout policy development stage and the passage of the Bill. And it was during Lords committee that we received formal confirmation from the Scottish Government that they wish the updates to the information gathering powers, to the Bill to apply to them to, and hence bringing forward appropriate amendments.

In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response to the questions from the label of Viscount. Viscount younger. Obviously, fundamentally, and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously, fundamentally, and it stems from the point made by the noble Lord Lloyd Palmer, tackling fraud and error in devolved benefits must be the responsibility of the of must be the responsibility of the of the relevant devolved governments. I mean that that is the nature of devolution. However, we have engaged devolution. However, we have engaged extensively with the devolved governments throughout the passage of the Bill and these these amendments reflect that engagement. amendments reflect that engagement. I want to reassure them. We also work routinely.

We work closely with the Scottish Government to share the Scottish Government to share information and good practice, to support each other's efforts to tackle fraud and error, and that includes data sharing agreements so includes data sharing agreements so we can share information when necessary, which I suspect is the kind of assurance that he was hoping for. Some Lords, I'm grateful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for. Some Lords, I'm grateful for those questions, but with those assurances, I hope noble Lords can accept these amendments. Question is that amendment 41 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that amendment 41 be agreed to as many that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendments 42 and 43 moved formally. The question is that moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to unblock as many that opinion will say. Content contrary not content to say. Content contrary not content to contents habit them at 44 withdrawn. We come now to amendment 45 bound to Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to. Start. Since we're moving on to discuss the eligibility verification measure, which we had extensive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measure, which we had extensive discussions in committee, I want to say. A few. Words about about the eligibility verification, the need for it and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

verification, the need for it and the intent behind it. This enables the Secretary of State. To wish you. A bank. Or other financial institution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or other financial institution with an eligibility verification notice and EVM, which will help DWP identify incorrect payments and the identify incorrect payments and the Social Security system. But if this measure has been misunderstood and occasionally misrepresented throughout the bill's passage, it is simply a measure that enables DWP to ask for limited data from financial ask for limited data from financial institutions that will help the department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits.

It requires financial institutions to look within their own data and provide within their own data and provide limited, relevant information on the accounts which match the specific eligibility indicators provided by eligibility indicators provided by DWP. This limited information will. Help DWP to identify where claimants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Help DWP to identify where claimants don't meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit they're receiving. For example, we may ask. Financial institutions in an EVM

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Financial institutions in an EVM to return limited information about accounts which match the following. Criteria one. The account receives Universal Credit and two the accounts have over £16,000 in capital. After applying the criteria in the EVM, the bank will return the specified limited information that can only include account details such as account numbers and sort codes. Details to identify the individuals, such as names and dates of birth, and details about how the accounts meet the criteria specified in the oven.

This data from banks is then matched with information DWP

**** Possible New Speaker ****

holder. Is. Indeed the benefit claimant, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so third parties like appointees or landlords will be screened out. At that. Stage and their information used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stage and their information used no further. DWP will then consider any relevant disregards, such as specified compensation payments, specified compensation payments, say, or money from the recent sale of a house, before assessing whether there does seem to have been an incorrect payment and taking the next steps accordingly. So, for example, if accounts were flagged as having more than £16,000 but during routine checks, DWP identifies that it's because someone has a it's because someone has a compensation payment of £50,000 that's disregarded for the purposes of their benefit entitlement.

Their of their benefit entitlement. Their data will not be used further and no further action is taken. Now. Improving access to information is Improving access to information is actually key to addressing and reducing fraud and error. We've seen in DWP how access to data like in DWP how access to data like earnings information from HMRC has really helped reduce overpayments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really helped reduce overpayments. In fact, in Universal Credit it is. Virtually eradicated. Earnings will earnings related overpayments for people on Paye overpayments for people on Paye because they can automatically check their data with HMRC. This legislation can help achieve a legislation can help achieve a similar outcome for other types of overpayments, like those who have too much capital or, for example, a living abroad. And what was the scale of fraud and error in the social security system. financial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Year. To 2025. In Universal Credit, overpayments totalled £6.4 billion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

totalled £6.4 billion. In Pension Credit. 610 million. And an ESA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And an ESA. 420 million. We need to take action to ensure we spend taxpayers money correctly, and it goes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money correctly, and it goes to will. Play a key role. In doing so, saving an estimated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In doing so, saving an estimated £940 million by 20 2930. Ros, I think it's hard to disagree that the. Government should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government should. Have the tools it needs to help people pay, to help pay people the correct amount of benefit. That's correct amount of benefit. That's not just our view. In the evidence at the Commons committee stage, the National Audit Office said, and I quote, if Parliament has set an eligibility criterion of capital as a part of Universal Credit and some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a part of Universal Credit and some other benefits, they continue. If you want it actually. To be enforced, then you have to provide. DWP with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DWP with. A tool that goes a bit further than just asking. Indeed, my Lords, than just asking. Indeed, my Lords, but I do know there are some members who are still concerned about whether there are sufficient safeguards in this measure. A noble safeguards in this measure. A noble Lords may recall I have my own concerns about the previous government's plans in this area. That's why I work with my colleagues That's why I work with my colleagues in DWP to design a new measure with a multitude of safeguards, protections and oversight provisions.

These safeguards protect benefit recipients, protect their data and seek to minimise compliance costs. These include restricting those on on whom DWP can collect information, limiting just to recipients of specified benefits and excluding the state pension entirely. Restricting the bodies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from whom DWP can demand information. Limiting it to financial institutions. Clearly limiting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clearly limiting. The purposes for which DWP can collect information tightly limiting collect information tightly limiting the accounts and scope. Limiting the type of information that can be requested with clear provisions that requested with clear provisions that certain data, such as information on transactions, cannot be shared with penalties for financial institutions penalties for financial institutions if they do so. Creating routes for financial institutions to dispute notices and request reviews. notices and request reviews. Requiring that a code of practice must be produced.

Giving guidance must be produced. Giving guidance for DWP and financial institutions on their obligations under this legislation. Ensuring that in cases of fraud and error, a human will make any decisions that affect benefit, entitlement and introducing new independent oversight for this measure and requiring the government to provide the reviewers with requested information.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requested information. But not these safeguards. Are in stark contrast to the measures proposed by the previous government, in which information government, in which information about anything can be requested from anybody, and every single benefit was in scope from the outset, was in scope from the outset, including the state pension. And I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bork's acknowledgement of the improvements I have been made to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improvements I have been made to the bill. I thank him for saying that. safeguards. The government has now put.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forward further amendments to reassure the House and the public. That. responsibly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibly. Government amendments 47 and 48. Create a new requirement that the Secretary of State must consider it Secretary of State must consider it necessary and proportionate to issue an even before doing so. That reflects the commitments I've been reflects the commitments I've been making throughout the Bill that we will only use, even when it's a necessary and proportionate way of necessary and proportionate way of helping to find incorrect payments in relevant benefits. This responds directly to amendment 49 from the directly to amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks, and his points raised in committee.

And although I may have more to add, once I have heard from the noble once I have heard from the noble Lord today, I hope the noble Lords will agree. This makes this legislation even more robust. I have also made clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also made clear. Throughout the. Bill that. No conclusions about fraudulent intent will be made from the intent will be made from the information alone, as at the point the information is shared, no one is the information is shared, no one is suspected of any wrongdoing. So, for example, again, they may have £50,000 in their account, but it may be from an exempt compensation be from an exempt compensation payment. And it's completely legitimate for them to have it. Nevertheless, to make this clear.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government amendments 45. 46, 51 and 66 seek to provide further assurance by clarifying that the purpose for which an event can be issued is only for assisting and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identifying incorrect payments. That makes it. Clear. That EVM information can only help to identify incorrect benefit payments, and DWP must consider other information which can help other information which can help verify whether benefits have indeed been incorrectly paid. This was always the intent of the power, my always the intent of the power, my Lords, but from the points raised by noble Lords and by some outside it, I know it's continue to be a I know it's continue to be a concern.

So I hope those amendments provide assurance to the House and the wider public that a conclusion will never be drawn from EVM will never be drawn from EVM information alone, and hopefully it puts this issue beyond doubt. In particular, I hope the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord walks will reflect on that. In relation. To the next group. Well, as in previous debates, Noble Lords have raised concerns about the potential raised concerns about the potential burden of EVM on financial institutions. Now, throughout the Bill, we've taken steps to minimise Bill, we've taken steps to minimise those burdens in response to our close work with the finance sector, including UK finance. Government amendments 61 extends the period during which financial institutions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are able to request an internal review of the decision to issue an EVM from 7. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

14 days. This was proposed by the industry to ensure banks have enough time to consider the contents of an event and any other relevant event and any other relevant factors, and requested a review. I'm very grateful to my colleagues in the department for their close work with industry, and I'm very happy to put forward that change today. My Lords, I hope that gives a good explanation of the way in which it operates. Of all the steps we've taken. And, my Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment proposed clause 75, page 43, line 31 after of insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assisting in. I appreciate the reassurances
16:53
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the reassurances given by the Minister. They are taken into account, but nonetheless taken into account, but nonetheless I rise to move two amendments that I think could go even further, and I would hope that the Minister can listen. Firstly, amendment 56, to ensure that affected parties are informed by their own bank when they are flagged following an eligibility verification notice. To note the even measure will by design, as has been conceded, not only detects serious fraudsters, but also people who have been flagged because they have erroneously received an overpayment, possibly due to the dwp's own mistakes, a possibility not acknowledged enough by measures in this bill, in my opinion.

But because of this, it is important that individuals identified by the power understand the basis on which they have been subjected to greater scrutiny and intrusion. I want to stress that this amendment is not intended to compromise investigations or tip off fraudsters, as was implied in committee stage. In fact, it would only come into play after an individual has been identified by the even measure. Why this matters is because one principle of the rule of law, the rule of law, which I know this government is very keen on, is that if you are accused of wrongdoing, you should be told the basis for that suspicion.

Now, of course, being flagged by the even should not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion in and of itself, as amendment 52, in fact, deals with. And I will fully support that when we get to it. But there's even less reason for an individual who is not suspected or of any criminal wrongdoing, who may indeed be the victim. As I've said of DWP administrative error, to be subjected to further checks and requirements without even being told why. It's just not good enough for the DWP to warn people in their personal information chart that benefits recipients bank account information may be provided to the departments.

They need to be informed at the moment that the powers bite, that is, once they have been flagged. And I think it's important to note that organisations like the Public Law Project are keen on seeing this being made into a reality, and just to humanise why this amendment matters. Last week, several leading charities and advocacy groups including Big Brother Watch, age UK and Disability Rights UK sent a joint letter to the DWP ministers, which I'm sure the ministers read, highlighting the potential human impact and real life costs of the impact of this bill's powers.

And it included testimony from members of the public receiving Pension Credit who told their stories to Silver Voices, the advocacy organisation for older people. And I was just particularly struck by the testimony of Sue from Manchester, who recounted her experience of having to clear her name due to a previous wrongful flag by the DWP, which accused her of having multiple undeclared bank accounts. And to quote so, she said, I had to get letters from each of those banks to clear my name.

As none of the banks answered the DWP. The mental anguish this has caused me is unbearable and nearly sent me under. Now, I appreciate that the DWP has gone to great pains to emphasise that they do not consider the even measure to be a government surveillance power, but the idea that you could be flagged by an algorithm that is rifling through your private bank statements and reported you back to the departments for further checks, all without being informed about it, is, and I say this tentatively Kafkaesque.

So I would like amendment 50 to correct that I also moving. I'm also moving amendment 62. The requires that the code of practice include scrutiny provisions about the algorithm used by banks, an issue I raised quite a lot at committee stage with some support from fellow peers. The situation is that the bank accounts of millions of people will be scoured through, sorry, scoured through by third party algorithms that neither the government nor banks have any hand in creating. And it's therefore essential we are able to scrutinise exactly what these algorithms are doing.

And I know that the Minister understands the concerns. It has just explained and articulated that well. But the government has said that the code of practice is not the appropriate vehicle for such scrutiny. But still, we have not been provided with any alternative. And what's more, there have been a ministerial opposition to amendments designed to provide greater transparency, apparently, over the eligibility indicators, which I find worrying. The Minister has characterised the algorithm that will be deployed for the even measure as merely comprising of two tests that have to be met to determine whether an individual can be flagged, whether an account is one that receives a relevant benefit, whether the account meets the criteria set up by the DWP in the oven, and the Minister has also answered at committee.

And again, now that it is the DWP that will review all the information received and DWP staff who will make any decisions about entitlement where potential fraud or error is identified. But, and it's a big bot, that review will only take place on the basis of information which is returned from the oven, meaning we do have to be able to scrutinise exactly what is being picked up by the algorithm. There may be simple tests, but they will be applying unpublished eligibility indicators that can complicate issues and will depend on what the eligibility indicators require banks to search for.

Okay, there may be little to scrutinise in relation to algorithmic algorithms, which simply detect whether someone has more than £16,000 in their bank account, or if, for example, 50% of their transactions have occurred abroad over a period of four weeks. However, should the algorithms have to assess conditions that are more complicated then the algorithms deployed by banks will necessarily be more involved. So, for example, for relevant benefits currently in scope, such as Pension Credit, Employment and Support Allowance in Universal Credit, would it be possible for the DWP to require banks to find people who they support, or who they suspect are claiming as being were not actually suffering from a disability or health condition that affects how much they can work.

Or would it be possible for the DWP to require banks to identify recipients on Pension Credit who live with a partner, but claim to live alone? That might be misplaced suspicion, but exactly how the algorithm is determining this sort of complex information, and what information it is extracting to reach its conclusions requires oversight. Otherwise, people will be worried and paranoid. Otherwise, we risk people being identified for further scrutiny. Investigation potentially on the basis of flawed algorithm logic. As I emphasised during committee stage, determining whether bank accounts meet the eligibility criteria for an even requires judgement.

It might not be human judgement, but algorithmic junctions. But the question is what are those criteria? What will the algorithm be asked to search for? And just to finish in another context, algorithmic scrutiny by medical experts revealed that an NHS computer algorithm deciding who to prioritise on the waiting list for liver transplants was discriminating against young patients. I'd like to think that that kind of scrutiny, which would pick up the pitfalls in that instance, is needed for this instance as well, so that we can identify where things go wrong.

And that's a key point recognised by the government, which is committed to algorithmic transparency already elsewhere, with the algorithmic transparency recording standard. Not an attractive title, but this at R. S requires all government departments using algorithms to publish information about how and why they're using algorithmic tools. So can the minister explain why that principle and commitment to transparency should not apply simply because the government are deputising to the banks, to the job of conducting these searches on their behalf in this instance.

So I look to the Minister to provide reassurance by committing to greater transparency over exactly what the eligibility indicators would require of the banks to identify through the use of algorithms. These are modest proposals, and I do not think as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yet. Despite assurances, I've been reassured. In my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my. Lords, as we've heard, this group relates to the measures in the Bill which would give the DWP the ability which would give the DWP the ability to require banks and other financial institutions to trawl all accounts that they hold in order to identify and provide information on accounts that have received certain benefits and which meets certain criteria as and which meets certain criteria as defined by DWP, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is suspicion of wrongdoing.

This is done by means of an eligibility verification Notice, which can require. The noble lady didn't
17:03
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
require. The noble lady didn't mention this when she describes it, which can require periodic reporting. So for example, daily. Although there hasn't been any clarity from the department from the noble lady yet as to the periods that are intended, I should at this point just reiterate this is a much better bill, and the safeguards that are there are much greater than they were last time we saw these, these clauses. But there is more to go. One other little correction I think I'd like to make to the noble lady her example of universal credits on this.

Her example was that the eligibility criteria that would be provided by DWP to the banks would be £16,000, because that is the limit. In fact, under the bill, it could be a much lower number because under the bill, the eligibility indicators may be criteria to be met by single accounts or by a number of accounts combined. So for the universal credit example, it might be 10,000 or 8000 or something of that nature, which means that it's even more likely in that situation that that eligibility indicators would be flagged for innocent people.

But just a wrinkle within the bill. I think many of us are nervous about the introduction of what is effectively suspicion as trawling of benefits recipients accounts, even with the safeguards over there. But I do understand and have an awful lot of sympathy for the need to reduce fraud and error, and the need for the department to have the tools to do that. The noble lady, Baroness Kramer's Amendment 45 A and others that I think we're about to hear would remove it altogether. My approach in this group and the next has been to seek to strengthen the safeguards that surround the use of the powers, rather than to remove them altogether.

And to that end, I've tabled one amendment in this group, amendment 49. The noble lady has already alluded to, and I'm very grateful to both the noble lady, Baroness Kramer and the noble Viscount Younger for their support on this. It's very simple. It simply requires that the Secretary of State may only issue an eligibility verification notice if satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to do so for the purposes set out in the Bill. My Lords, it was quite surprising that this basic safeguard was not already in the bill because the same wording already appears in relation to all of the other powers created by the Bill.

I am afraid I had assumed this was a drafting error, an oversight, as I can't imagine any reason why it shouldn't be there in relation to these powers. But since I tabled amendment 49, I'm very pleased to say, as the noble lady has mentioned, that she has tabled amendment 48, which just does very much the same thing, although it doesn't restrict the necessity and proportionality to the purposes of the bill, which I think is regrettable, but I can live with her version and I'm grateful to her for doing this.

Following the constructive discussions we've had throughout the process, as we've had, you know, on a range of issues for which we're very grateful. Her other amendments also introduce small but useful tweaks to the safeguards. She I'm not sure I would go as far as she does in the effect of them, but with thanks to the noble lady, the minister for her engagement, I won't be moving amendment 49, but I should be clear now that I don't believe that amendment 48 and the others that she has tabled remove the needs for the changes that we'll be discussing in the next group.

We can have those discussions then, and I will obviously reflect on what she has said. In the meantime.
17:06
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I will be very brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has amendments in this. And in other groups, several of which I've signed. To try and ameliorate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or provide. Safeguards for some of the most intrusive. Elements of the current draft of this bill. And I have great sympathy this bill. And I have great sympathy also with the amendments moved by put down by Baroness Fox around the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue of. Transparency, which is very evidently absent for most of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evidently absent for most of this bill, let me say that I will be supporting that those individuals, if they. If they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If they. Move to. If they decide make. A decision. To move for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move for. A vote. My amendments 45 ayes, 65 and 74 A are frankly, by contrast to and 74 A are frankly, by contrast to those of Baroness Fox and Lord Fox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That are frankly not nuanced. They simply remove clauses 7576 and schedule three of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and schedule three of. The bill. In effect eliminating the. Requirement for banks to look into.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Claimants bank accounts. In effect, they. Destroy the principle that the bill establishes, which is that a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill establishes, which is that a. Group of people. characteristic. That they are in receipt of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That they are in receipt of limited. Right to privacy. And data protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Than the rest of the community. I am also very concerned when banks become investigative agents of. The become investigative agents of. The state. I regard these as lines we simply should not cross. Now, I know simply should not cross. Now, I know the Minister does not share that view, and is very contempt that those in receipt of benefits should be under a level of surveillance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be under a level of surveillance. In a way. That is considered. Inappropriate for the rest of the community. She for the rest of the community. She has, to her credit, limited some of the most abusive features of the bill we receive from the Commons. But she still. Asserts the underlying principle. I also realise this is very much a paving bill for this is very much a paving bill for the. Intrusions that will follow the introduction of the digital. ID that scheme provides the tools which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scheme provides the tools which enables the state to carve out for surveillance any variety. Of groups of people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of groups of people. Whom they deem unworthy of sharing the general rights accorded under the law. I have put down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under the law. I have put down. My killer amendments. In effect. That's because I think the public needs to know what exactly is at stake and what line has been crossed. I will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has been crossed. I will not be pressing my amendments, but I am also determined. That the issues will not be quietly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tidied away. In. My Lords, if I may say a few words about amendment 60, and also thank the noble lady, Baroness Bennett of Manna Castle for her support. My concern here is about justice. People at the receiving end justice. People at the receiving end of DWP penalties and accusations of fraud will predominantly be old, sick. Disabled and the poor. Most would not be able to afford legal would not be able to afford legal advice would not qualify for legal aid, which is scarce.

In any case, aid, which is scarce. In any case, the DWP actions and penalties could arise because people have made arise because people have made errors in completing very long and. Complex forms. For example.
17:09
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
The Pension.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Credit form is 24 pages long, has 243 questions on it. Errors can be 243 questions on it. Errors can be made in completing the forms interpretation of questions on the interpretation of questions on the form and DWP is assessment of the form and DWP is assessment of the answers given to those questions. There's a high probability that some people may be eventually unjustly people may be eventually unjustly accused of committing fraud and face removal of monies from bank accounts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

removal of monies from bank accounts without their express approval. It will. It will really. Be the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be the. Might of the state on one hand and a poor person on the other, who doesn't really have any legal advice. We know from the Post Office. Scandal that the innocent Office. Scandal that the innocent individuals can be pressurised into admitting frauds, which they did not commit. They can be pressurised into commit. They can be pressurised into handing over monies which they did not steal or do not owe. So there is not steal or do not owe.

So there is an enormous scope for injustice in this bill. If we look at the High this bill. If we look at the High Court case 2023 case of overseas, the Secretary of State for Work and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, this case related to a mother, a single mother of two disabled adults who was receiving universal Credit and it was overpaid by £8,623, entirely due to the fault

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of DWP. DWP sought to. Recover the money. The High Court judgement said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The High Court judgement said that under certain circumstances, benefit claimants may be able to argue that recovering the debt would argue that recovering the debt would be an unlawful breach of their legitimate expectation and the debt legitimate expectation and the debt need not actually be paid. Would many claimants who are accused of many claimants who are accused of committing frauds or receiving overpayments actually be aware of these things? Steve Webb, former these things? Steve Webb, former pension minister, said it can be difficult for people to understand difficult for people to understand what are the demands they are being sent for.

Overpayments are a mistake as benefits such as tax credit and pension credit are so complex. So pension credit are so complex. So without legal advice, these people become ever more even more vulnerable. Last year, a lot of vulnerable. Last year, a lot of press coverage was given to the plight of a 75 year old pensioner plight of a 75 year old pensioner who was chased by DWP for pension Credit fraud, adding up to £22,000.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Credit fraud, adding up to £22,000. The sun newspaper took up. The case. And eventually the investigation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And eventually the investigation showed that there were there was no fraud. It was all due to errors by DWP and this case obviously isn't unique. There are many others which don't get the publicity, so I can't help wondering how many people over the years actually have been pressurised into admitting guilt when they are not guilty. How many more will admit guilt when they simply are just pressed into it? Last year, data secured by Big Brother Watt showed that more than 200,000 people have been have wrongly face investigation for housing benefit fraud and error after the performance of the government's algorithm fell far short of expectations.

Earlier this year, 30 charities wrote to the government pointing out the dangers of what this legislation and previous legislation have done, and they identified 686,756 new official error overpayments are on Universal Credit. So eventually, at some point, people who are accused need some advice. So what amendment 60 suggests is that the government actually ought to provide that legal advice to people who may well qualify for that. And on 9th October this year, the government announced that all victims of Post Office Horizon IT scandal who are claiming compensation will be entitled to free legal advice.

Well, why wait till people suffer? Why not offer this advice upfront to save anguish to millions of people? That is what a civilised society would do. I'm sure the minister would not support this and would possibly refer to the cost associated with this. But my Lords, the cost of injustice is even higher. So I do hope that the Minister would be able to offer some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

help with this. My Lords, perhaps I would take this opportunity of referring to the
17:14
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this opportunity of referring to the title of this bill, which is not just fraud, it's fraud, error and recovery. And what we're really dealing with is unintentional error. If you are at the bottom of the food chain worrying how to pay for your food or all the other necessities of life, and you receive some money in the real world, you people don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look too carefully at that. They receive. And it then. Transpires that. They.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They. Have been an error, not really a fraud. And that's part of the title fraud. And that's part of the title of this bill. And what the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks and my noble Lord, Lord Vaulks and my noble friend Baroness Kramer and Lord Saker have tried to explain, is that Saker have tried to explain, is that this these are errors, not fraud. So this these are errors, not fraud. So this these amendments reflect on our ongoing concerns that the bill ongoing concerns that the bill grants excessive powers that could intrude upon individuals financial intrude upon individuals financial privacy and be applied punitively to those receiving Universal Credit who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are the bottom of the food chain. Fox. Name Alliance. The safeguards that apply for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The safeguards that apply for the use of. Eligibility verification powers. With the safeguards that exist in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the safeguards that exist in other. Sections of the Bill ensuring continuity in this legislation. And continuity in this legislation. And my noble friend Baroness Kramer's amendments would remove the requirement for banks to examine requirement for banks to examine bank accounts of relevant claimants. Now, I don't think we expect a division on this bill, but I hope government will take account of the nervousness that many of us feel about the excessive powers that could affect people least able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defend themselves. Yeah.
17:16
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, each touching on different principles relating to the operation of and relating to the operation of and limits to the eligibility verification measure. And I will address them all briefly in turn. And I would like to start by the fact that I appreciate the full reminder by the noble Baroness, the Minister of the intent, with some operational details behind the EVM. I think it was very helpful on amendments 45, a 65 and 74 a in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

As she may expect, I'm afraid that we cannot support these amendments. And as the noble Baroness herself iterated, these amendments would in practice remove one of the bill's core operational mechanisms. The framework that enables the detection and investigation of fraud and error in the welfare system. Taking out clause 75, 76 and schedule three would not simply adjust how the powers are used, it would dismantle the machinery that allows the system to actually function. So we and these benchers support the principles behind the bill and, broadly speaking, how it seeks to counter fraud and deter wrongdoing.

And as the noble Baroness, the Minister reminded us that it was a conservative government up until the general election last year that initiated the approach for DWP to ask banks and financial institutions for their help in tackling welfare fraud. And I also acknowledge, too, that some improvements in the past year have been made. So removing these clauses would in effect be a wrecking amendment, as the noble Baroness herself has admitted, denying the Department for Work and Pensions the tools that it needs to identify and, as evidence cases of fraud.

The real debate, and the one that this House has been having constructively throughout committee and again here and report, is about how those powers are exercised proportionately, cost effectively and with due regard to rights, safeguards and wellbeing. And that is the discussion I believe we should be having, not one that seeks to straight out strike out the core of the bill. So turning to the government amendments, we broadly welcome them. They make sensible, constructive improvements to the operation of events. The first, as set out in amendment G 48, is the insertion of the necessary and proportionate test, which is a welcome safeguard which raises the standard for how these powers are applied.

The second clarification that events may be used only for assisting in identifying incorrect payments, provides welcome precision and helps prevent any risk of mission creep. And talking of precision, my Lords, may I at this stage thank the noble Baroness, the Minister and her team for producing a series of flowcharts. As she knows, I was pressing for these at committee because there is considerable complexity, including work in progress. Or do we now call it test and learn and not proof of concept? I am not very sure in all those involved in understanding the processes and operations between the banks and DWP with the checks, the balances and the timeframes set out.

And I do hope that the Minister acknowledges that this has been a help for his now, a help for the Department, and that it will continuously be updated and improved as the system evolves. We believe, however, that there remains scope for further clarification, which is why I was glad to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks of Harrington. This additional clarification in the language of the Lord Lord Walker's amendment is important. It makes it explicit that the exercise of this power is anchored to the purposes of the Bill itself, rather than to any broader or more flexible administrative interpretation that might develop over time.

In practical terms, it ensures that the Secretary of State's use of these powers cannot be varied or expanded, except by returning to Parliament to amend the primary legislation, for example, where the government at some future point to seek to extend these powers to cover other forms of wealth, welfare support, and we believe this is an important safeguard. It ties the scope of the eligibility verification regime firmly to the text of the Bill, providing Parliament and the public with confidence that its use will remain confined to the limited, proportionate purposes that we have debated.

And for that reason, we consider this as a sensible and necessary amendment, and we are glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Fawkes, in bringing it forward. On amendment 50, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We are sorry to say that we cannot support support it or indeed this one, although we entirely appreciate her engagement with us on this point and the spirit in which it was brought forward. The aim of improving transparency is understandable. But requiring banks to inform account holders that they have been flagged following an eligibility verification notice risks undermining the integrity of ongoing investigations.

But I listened carefully to the noble Baroness speech and despite the noble Baroness explanation and the safeguard that she outlined, we remain worried that notifying a potential potentially liable person too early, it could allow them, could allow them to conceal or move funds, frustrating the process. So while the intention is fair, it could cause or create a serious loophole and we therefore I am afraid, cannot support it. But one of the points I do agree with the government on is that some of those seeking to defraud the state, which, after all, is taxpayers money that we're talking about will stop at nothing to get their way to make money for themselves.

There is a line to be drawn to ensure transparency does not provide an open goal for fraudsters. Turning now to amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord. Second, it appears that the drafting may not achieve what is intended. As it stands. It would see, having read it, to place a duty on banks or institutions rather than individuals, to receive legal advice before complying with the notice. DWP in any case has access to legal advice in departmental, so it would be up to the department's discretion to use this on a case by case basis and should not be statutory.

If, however, the noble Lords intent, which became clear, I think, or clearer in his remarks, is to ensure that individuals affected by DWP actions can access advice or support that is a broader and legitimate issue, but this amendment does not appear to address it and therefore we therefore do not or cannot support it. Individuals might choose to consult a lawyer, but this would be up to them. So can the noble Baroness. The Minister confirm that no taxpayer's funds would be used to fund this? If this was indeed the intention? Turning now to amendment G 61, we welcome the government's change to extend the review period from 7 to 14 days.

This responds directly to concerns raised by us on these benches and by other noble Lords. The committee that the original time frame is too short for financial institutions to act upon. It is a practical and welcome step that reflects the realities of compliance, and we are glad that the government have listened. And finally, on amendment 62, again tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we do hear have some sympathy. And I do remember that the noble Baroness spoke to this in committee.

It is right that individuals should be able to understand, at least in part, the role of algorithms used in decisions that affect them, and being able to have sight of this as part of a review makes sense. However, transparency must not come at the cost of investigatory integrity. As I stated earlier, there is a delicate balance between fairness to individuals and protecting methods that could be exploited if disclosed. Now, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked many questions and I certainly won't repeat them, but I would just simply ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, if she could clarify how this concerned and her concerns might be addressed in practice, perhaps through the review of the review or the appeal mechanism, while maintaining that balance.

So finally, my Lords, we welcome that the amendments in this group do provide us with an opportunity to have a further discussion on this important part of the bill, the essence of the prime aim of the Bill. And we are grateful for the government for listening to the concerns that were raised at committee, as well as other labour laws for identifying areas in which they are concerned and offering the government the chance to comment. And we shall be listening with interest to the reply and the response from the group of Baroness, the Minister.
17:24
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and indeed throughout the Committee. I think we have a better Bill as a result, and I'm grateful for that. And I'm grateful to the noble Viscount, Viscount Younger, for his support and for the principle that we're discussing here and also for his for his gracious acknowledgement of the improvements of the bill. I thank him for that. That was that was a kind of gracious comment, and I appreciate it. My Lords, in response, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I won't dwell on this, but I'm grateful to him for accepting that even if he came at the issue from a slightly different angle, he's happy with where we've ended up, and I thank him again for pushing us throughout the bill in various ways, and I'm grateful that he has.

He has accepted where we've landed up with our amendment. In terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, she's absolutely right. I remember it is not nuanced that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whatever the opposite of nuance. Is, I think it. Lands firmly in that court. And in a sense, it's straight. I mean, her party doesn't support these measures at all. And no doubt were they to form a government, they'd they to form a government, they'd have another place to find £1 billion to make up for it. However, our party is determined that if our party is determined that if we're going to spend money on Social Security, it should go to the people who are entitled to it and the who are entitled to it and the people who need it.

And it should not be going to other people. And we will take the necessary measures to will take the necessary measures to make sure that that happens. And we're doing that here. However, we want to make sure that is done in a way which is appropriate and with enough safeguards. And I hope I have shown to the House my willingness to bend over backwards to provide those bend over backwards to provide those safeguards. But the principle is one that people should not be getting money to which they are not entitled.

It should go to those who entitled. It should go to those who are entitled and who need it. And that's what we're doing here. My Lords, amendment 60, tabled by my friend Lord Siska, the noble friend Lord Siska, the noble Viscount Buckinghamshire, is quite right and as tabled, the amendment as applies to the section which as applies to the section which covers penalties that may be issued to financial institutions which fail to comply with an even. And so the effect of the amendment would be effect of the amendment would be that DWP would be required to ensure that financial institutions have taken legal advice before issuing a penalty for failing to comply with an EVM, which I think we probably can all agree.

If they did need legal advice, they can probably afford it. And so I think we're okay on that front. However, I fully understand it's very hard to table amendments outside government, and I take it the intention of the amendment as, as you made clear, which is that DWP is required to ensure claimants receive legal advice before DWP can make any adjustment to a person's claim. But, my Lords, I would say we do not regard that as being either practical or necessary. There are already existing protections for claimants whenever an overpayment is calculated, including the ability to request a mandatory reconsideration and or appeal to tribunal.

Where an individual is investigated on a suspicion of fraud, then they may be interviewed under caution, and in that situation they will always be notified of their right to seek legal advice and provided with information about applying for financial assistance with legal costs through legal aid. And in response to the question, the Labour Viscount, Viscount Younger. Obviously legal aid is funded from the public person. If somebody were to qualify for legal aid, then that would be funded by the taxpayer in the appropriate way.

I confess, I that's about as much as I could probably offer in that front. But I would also just say to my other friend that one of the one of the real issues he mentioned mentioned a whole range of difficult circumstances. And a lot of the debate here tends to mix up fraud and error and all different kinds of reasons for overpayments. There are there are different reasons why somebody may out being overpaid. They may it may have been a genuine error. They may have been careless.

They may have forgotten or deliberately failed to tell us about some change to their circumstance which affects their entitlement, or it may be flawed, or there may have been error on the part of the state. There can be all kinds of reasons. One of the things that gathering data early does is to minimise the extent of build up of any other payment, whatever the reason, and that has to be a good thing. It's what we found out elsewhere. So I would hope you would appreciate that.

That is at least part of it. I'm turning now to the amendments tabled by the noble lady, Baroness Fox. And she said amendment 50, requiring camp holders to be informed, even though I know she doesn't intend it to do this. The reality is it could clearly compromise Dwp's ability to tackle fraud. In most cases, where it's just an error that's been made, DWP will contact claimants to give them the opportunity to explain potential incorrect payments and so in which case the amendment wouldn't be needed.

But in those cases where there is a suspicion of fraud, it would clearly undermine any criminal investigation to inform a potential fraudster that their information had been identified using AVM or what the financial institution had identified, but it also may cause unnecessary distress for those who were not guilty of fraud. But for account holders and claimants who, for example, in that case may have a disregarded compensation payment and in otherwise would have been quite rightly left alone because they hadn't done anything wrong. So we don't want there's no need to try to try to scare people, that there is an issue coming down the track.

It would also, of course, impose further but further burdens on financial institutions who would have to inform their customers about this. Number 62 from the mobile Lady Baroness Fox wants scrutiny of the methods of financial institution may use to identify relevant accounts. At the risk of boring the house, EVM only asks banks to return specified data where criteria set out in the bill have been met. Now, financial institutions operate in many different ways, and it has to be for each financial institution to work out how they identify relevant accounts.

While for the government to set out potentially cumbersome processes just to pick up on a couple of things, she said. I mean, she mentioned that the idea that we and I do want to make this really clear, we will not be asking banks, for example, to work out whether somebody is entitled to a health benefit like Isa. We may ask them if somebody to identify an account into which Isa is being paid. But for example, health data will be special data and will be there for expressly prohibited from being returned.

The intention is very simple to ask them to identify the kind of things I described earlier, and in something of a lot of walks. I'm giving an example. There are many examples about that. That was the one I chose just to say, to sum up, I mean, I've set out, I think, a clear case for the EVM and how our government amendments today and other changes that have been made address many of the areas of concern I recognise. I haven't persuaded them they are Lady Baroness, claimant Kramer, but I hope other noble Lords can see the point of this measure, can see the difference it would make, and can understand that with the safeguards around, it's the right thing to do.

The EVM will save an estimated £940 million by the year 20 2930. It will be a vital tool to help DWP spot and detect errors quickly, when also assisting us in identifying fraud. And my Lords, I urge Lords to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this measure. I beg to move. The question. Is that amendment 45 be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Yes. The country not contents. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The country not contents. The contents have it. Amendment 45 a Baroness Kramer not moved for the convenience of the House. I suggest that I move government amendments 46 that I move government amendments 46 to 48 on block. The question is that these amendments be agreed to as these amendments be agreed to as many as that pin so content the contrary not contents the contents contrary not contents the contents tablet amendment 49 would. Not moved Amendment 50.

Baroness Fox not moved. Amendment government amendment 51. Baroness Sherlock amendment 51. Baroness Sherlock moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. The contrary not contents. The contents have it. We now come to the contents have it. We now come to the next group. Lord box of Paradigm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 52. During the debate on the previous group. The two amendments in this group are designed to strengthen the group are designed to strengthen the safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification powers that are created by this bill. And I'm grateful once again for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer and the noble Viscount Younger for
17:33
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
their support. The First Amendment 52, deals with how the bank account data that is provided by the banks data that is provided by the banks may be used. The bill requires banks to carry out a trawl of all accounts to carry out a trawl of all accounts they hold, to identify any that are in receipt of specified benefits, and then to test those against criteria that will be provided by the DWP. If they meet those criteria, then this raises a flag criteria, then this raises a flag called an eligibility Indicator deals, details of which must be provided to DWP along with certain provided to DWP along with certain other limited information in a format to be decided by DWP.

The trawl can be on be required on a trawl can be on be required on a periodic basis. It could be, for example daily. We don't yet know. No suspicion is required. This is suspicion is required. This is simply a trawling operation of all bank accounts and this raises two bank accounts and this raises two important issues. Firstly, the existence of an eligibility eligibility indicator will eligibility indicator will presumably trigger action by DWP. At the moment, there's nothing in the bill that decides what that action bill that decides what that action could be.

Clause 73 creates a range of very intrusive investigatory powers to investigate if an authorised officer of DWP has reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing, what are reasonable grounds for suspicion is not defined. So could the mere existence of an eligibility indicator constitute such grounds? There's nothing in the bill to say that it cannot, and I don't think the amendments in that were referred to in the last group are the noble Baroness, the minister that say it can the eligibility indicator can only be used to assist in identifying fraud or error actually solves this issue.

Similarly, there's nothing in the bill to prevent action being taken to suspend or alter a benefit payment in the event that an eligibility indicator is flagged. And as we've heard, my Lords, there are many innocent reasons why an eligibility indicator may exist. And indeed, as I said, the eligibility indicator can be set at a level which wouldn't indicate fraud at all. £8,000 for Universal Credit situation. For example, the existence of an eligibility indicator does not indicate any guilt. So the noble lady of the minister has told us the department will not treat an eligibility indicator as reasonable that the draft code of practice that we've been provided with draft does say that a benefit cannot be altered just because of the existence of an eligibility indicator, but that is only a code which can be changed at will by this or any future government without scrutiny.

Secondly, it's not known how much data will be sent to DWP by the banks under the even process, but presumably it's going to be substantial. It's clear that it will be processed electronically, and there's nothing in the bill that will prevent this process becoming fully automated, including the decision making. DWP has made it very clear and as a publicly, that it is rolling out AI processes generally, which may be more efficient. But in my view any decisions do need to be subject to human review.

We've heard during the committee process about the Netherlands child benefit scandal, which was caused by automated decision making, eventually led to a government falling. Interestingly again, the noble lady has been clear, and the draft code is also fairly clear that the information will be reviewed by a person before any action, such as an amendment to or suspension of benefits can be taken. But again, it's only in the code and this could be changed without scrutiny. Now, I think all of us in this chamber trust the noble lady completely, but she won't always be the minister, however much we might wish that were the case.

Indeed, my Lords, it is even possible that this government will not always be the government. But this law will remain the law. A future government may be less scrupulous about how benefit recipients are treated, and this bill left unamended, would open the possibility that eligibility indicators, regardless of innocence, could lead to deeply intrusive actions or unfair financial impacts, potentially on a fully automated basis. So all amendment 52 does. Is it makes it clear that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion, and it makes it a requirement on the face of the bill that a suitably experienced person must have reviewed the information before any action to use intrusive powers against the benefit recipient, or to amend or suspend payments is taken.

Now, I believe that is what the government is intending. So I really don't understand why there's a problem with accepting this amendment. It doesn't add any onerous obligations. It simply clarifies the situation that we are being told is the case. The Second Amendment, amendment 67, considers the impact and potential unintended consequences of these powers. The government has included an independent review process into the use of the eligibility verification powers, which is a very welcome and important safeguard and a real a genuinely excellent addition to when we last saw this bill.

But as it stands, the scope of that review is very limited. It covers only that the exercise of the powers has been in accordance with the Bill and the Code of practice, that the persons who've been issued with eligibility notices have complied, and that it's been effective in identifying or assisting in identifying incorrect payments. The independent reviewer cannot look at any other impacts the policy might have. We've had spent a lot of time debating during committee stage the costs that this bill will impose on the banks, but no meaningful attempt has been made to quantify those yet.

To quote from the impact assessment. And I quote, at this stage, we are unable to provide a robust assessment of business costs for validation because the operational solution for the measure is still being developed and quotes. So we really do need to make sure that the costs are proportional. So all that. The amendment 67 adds a review of the costs of the policy to the scope of the independent review, to ensure they're reasonable and proportional to the benefits. Secondly, we heard a lot about the fears of the impacts these new powers might have on disabled people and other vulnerable people, as well as the concern that imposing these onerous duties on the banks might reduce the willingness of the banks to provide banking services to those in receipt of benefits.

This is a subject that most of us here have personal experience of, as politically exposed persons, we have seen how the banks behave when additional burdens are put upon them. In respect of a particular group of people. There's nothing to believe, no reason to believe. That could not be the same in this situation. But the bill includes nothing at all in relation to potential unintended consequences. So amendment 67 adds consideration of these potential unintended consequences to the scope of the independent review.

And finally, the amendment gives the independent review of the opportunity to confirm that they've received all the information that they require. Now, this is now a bit of a formality following the welcome amendment that the government that we debated last week, that the government's tables, which moved the may provide information to becoming a must, but it was subject to a reasonable, reasonably required caveats. So there is still a possibility of disagreement between the reviewer and the department as to what information they might reasonably require.

So this just allows the reviewer to flag that they haven't got what they think they need, which I think is a useful but not onerous safeguard. My Lords, these proposed eligibility verification powers are extremely intrusive, and so they really must be subject to robust safeguards, which these two amendments relatively simple seek to strengthen. Unless I hear something unexpected from the noble lady and I will listen to her very carefully, I am minded to seek the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. When the time comes, I beg to move. And proposed schedule three, page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed schedule three, page at line 26. At the end, insert the words as printed on the martial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words as printed on the martial. Oh. My notes. There are. Moments when. You. Hear a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speech about a subject in which you are in general, support of,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you are in general, support of, clearly. The key issues. I think Lord box has actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

produced that speech. Now. I think it is.
17:41
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is. Extremely dangerous for us to put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Extremely dangerous for us to put ourselves in the hands of I. I think. It's particularly. Dangerous to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's particularly. Dangerous to. Put those who are vulnerable into the hands of I. Indeed, I find it offensive when. People who are able.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To appreciate things. Particularly well. Should think it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Should think it. Was all right for others to be subject to automatic operations. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to automatic operations. And I think Lord Vox's point, which is that the government recognises. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. And that's why it's in. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that's why it's in. The advice, then why isn't it. In. The bill? And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill? And I. Do. Think this is an issue for this. House and a very. Important issue for this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this House. I do not think it acceptable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To have circumstances in increased where vulnerable people are subject to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are subject to. The system. Which is why I want just to say a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is why I want just to say a word about the system. It seems to me that one of the reasons why me that one of the reasons why democracy is so much under threat is because so many people feel because so many people feel themselves to be under threat by the system. The system is an alien thing. Well, if you don't want it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing. Well, if you don't want it. To be alien. You have to make sure that at least it is. Human and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is. Another reason, and it's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another reason, and it's a. Reason that Lord Bork said. Delicately. And politely, but very. Effectively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Effectively. And that is. That there are some pretty nasty. People in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People in this country. Who are at the moment blaming most things on groups of people who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most things on groups of people who. They. Dislike, whether it is because of their race, because of their. Position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Position. Or because in a sense, they just don't think they matter. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't think they matter. It is. Always possible. That such people get into power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That such people get into power. I do not want those people to have. The chance. Of using legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of using legislation. Which we. Who are. Decent people, I hope. Have passed, and that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the reason. Why I have come. For this particular amendment. It is because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is because. I think. For these months and years we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For these months and years we have to stand up on. Every occasion to recognise the damage that is done to recognise the damage that is done in a system where people like that get power, you only have to look across the Atlantic and see what happens when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those who. Build up antagonism to groups get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Build up antagonism to groups get power and use legislation which was power and use legislation which was meant to be different in order to ensure the. Ends which they have in ensure the. Ends which they have in mind. So I beg of the Minister to recognise that all we want is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise that all we want is the guidance in the law. If we. Have. That. Then she need not worry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. Then she need not worry. And I say that as somebody who has in history, as a minister of some 16

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in history, as a minister of some 16 years, always being very tough on fraud, always. Believing that people should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Believing that people should. Not get what they don't deserve. Don't. Need, shouldn't have, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's very damaging to those who do need it. That's why I don't like it. It's because it. Puts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Puts. Them in so difficult a position. So I beg of her just simply to make So I beg of her just simply to make sure that when we don't have ministers of the standing and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quality that she has shown, that they can't use the law for improper purposes. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. That's very clear, John.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my, my Lords, thank you very much to the noble all. Devon for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because because. The point I'd. Like to make. Is that there are people who. Will perpetuate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will perpetuate. Fraud. But if you try and close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But if you try and close. Up every single channel, you will
17:45
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
catch people who are innocent. So I believe that all. Laws should allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for people perhaps to get away. With fraud. If.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With fraud. If. It means. That you're you're. Not making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Accusing people unintentionally. So I mean, I think. These amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Are appropriate because you as as has been said, who knows what God want comes along. Who knows what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want comes along. Who knows what people will be in charge. And I believe if there is fraud. It.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. Has to be proved pretty conclusively rather than because you suspect fraud.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And make. Impossible for people who who otherwise. Be found innocent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be found innocent. And if we found that with the With the Horizon scandal, it looked With the Horizon scandal, it looked all right. I said they were all guilty, but they weren't guilty. And guilty, but they weren't guilty. And increasingly, with even speeches probably made in this House come from I, I we have to be careful about what we do. And so these amendments, I believe, protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments, I believe, protect people and I. Believe. From these benches we will we if. They move, we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They move, we. Will be supporting them. My Lords, I want to speak in support of these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks of Harrington, and I am pleased to have added my name to them, because both amendments make, I believe, valuable and necessary clarifications to the operation and oversight of the eligibility verification mechanism, the FDM. And they do so in a way that strengthens rather than weakens the government's own objectives. Under this bill, amendment 52 makes
17:48
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
a particularly important clarification, as the government have repeatedly described their have repeatedly described their approach to the EVM as a test and learn process. It is absolutely vital that we make it clear on the vital that we make it clear on the face of the bill that the mere existence of an eligibility indicator does not, in itself, indicator does not, in itself, constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion. That may sound like a technical point, but it has real technical point, but it has real world implications.

When a system is still developing, when its data sources are still being refined, and sources are still being refined, and when human understanding of how it operates is still evolving, there is a very real risk of false positives a very real risk of false positives and unintended consequences. The government have said that there is some clarification within the some clarification within the process of an investigation, which would help to clarify that persons subject to an EVM are not guilty, subject to an EVM are not guilty, and that there are not, therefore necessarily reasonable grounds for suspicion.

However, putting this suspicion. However, putting this clarification on the face of the bill would be a really valuable step in making this absolutely clear in black and white to everyone involved. And this amendment removes ambiguity and ensures that this ambiguity and ensures that this point is not in question. Now, we've already discussed throughout this bill the importance of safeguards bill the importance of safeguards and clarity when new investigative systems are created, particularly when multiple third parties are involved in data sharing and enforcement, which is paramount.

This amendment provides exactly that and sets out this lack of reasonable suspicion on the face of the bill, so that we avoid the potentially harmful ambiguity. Moreover, my Lords, this amendment ensures that before any intrusive action is taken, in other words, before any benefit is amended, suspended or investigated, a person of appropriate seniority and experience must review the information and confirm that there are genuine, reasonable grounds for suspicion. This aspect of the amendment places human oversight where it belongs between the algorithm and the citizen, and it matters all the more because, as many noble lords will have seen, the government themselves are moving rapidly to expand the use of AI in fraud detection and enforcement.

And only a couple of weeks ago, civil servants across Whitehall received an internal update about the significant expansion of AI use within the Public Sector Fraud Authority. In an article titled and I quote behind the scenes building the AI tool that's revolutionising fraud prevention, unquote. Now, I listened very carefully to the passionate speech from the noble Lord. Lord Damon added to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. But we believe that this makes these safeguards an urgent necessity, as we rightly modernise our defences against fraud, we must also modernise our protections against error, against bias and against overreach, ensuring human involvement in that process in the way that has been set out in this bill is fundamentally important, and this amendment provides that assurance.

Turning now to amendment 67, which complements the first one by broadening the remit of the independent review of the EVM powers and the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks eloquently laid out his reasoning here. It makes sure that the reviewer looks not just at operational effectiveness, but also at proportionality, at costs, at unintended consequences, and at how these powers affect vulnerable people and those interacting with the banking system. And these are precisely the areas where well-intentioned powers can have unintended harm, if not closely monitored.

So we and these benches have raised these concerns at committee. And now, again, a report, the potential for disproportionate costs on financial institutions, the potential chilling effect on access to basic banking services for those already on the margins, and, above all, the potential for harm to vulnerable people who find themselves caught up in complex enforcement processes. It is right that the independent reviewer should have these matters placed explicitly within their remit, and I am therefore glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks, has framed his amendment to achieve.

We believe exactly that we need to recover public money which has been overpaid. We are in no doubt on that point, but to do so in a way which causes more harm than good, of course, benefits no one. The reviewer must have regard to this not as a suggested area of review, but as a statutory duty. My Lords, just to conclude, these are measured, practical amendments, and I believe that they carry broad support across the House. They are not about blocking the bill or frustrating its purpose.

They are about ensuring that the new systems it creates are used wisely, fairly and proportionately. We therefore hope that the government will listen and will take these proposals seriously, recognise their constructive intent and accept them as a genuine improvement to the Bill. And if the noble Lord, Lord walks, decides to test the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House, we on these benches will be supporting him. My Lords, I am grateful to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and my response to these amendments builds on the arguments I made at greater length in the last group. Amendment 52 from the noble Lord. Lord box states that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone
17:52
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for the suspicion of fraud. Under section 109 BCB, the Social Security Administration Act. And my Lords, I have sought already to assure noble Lords today that a conclusion will never be drawn from even information, and at this point the information is shared. No one is suspected of having done anything wrong, and therefore, by definition, no action could be taken to correct the thing that could have been done wrong because no one is suspected of having done anything wrong.

I think I could not be clearer on that. I think it's worth just reminding the House that there are two different things happening here. What this measure does is allow DWP to ask banks to flag up accounts that may, on the face of it, have received a benefit and have, and to which they are not entitled. That's a piece of information which comes into the department along with other pieces of information. It will then be sifted and examined, and decisions were made in the usual processes.

DWP does this all the time with all kinds of information. Those decisions are made and pursuing fraud is done is something that's done day to day. So whenever DWP receives data in response to a notice and even the data will first be matched with information the DWP holds so it can identify the claimant, identify any inconsistencies between the information received from the financial institution and the information provided by the claimant over the life of their claim. Also, look at any possible disregards and any other relevant information.

As I explained in the last group, it's only then, as with our current practice, when a possible inconsistency is identified, steps will be taken to determine how, or even if a claim needs to be reviewed In some cases will be clear, no further action is required and the data from the EVM will be used no further. In cases of potential error, DWP may contact the customer to discuss the claim or ask for further information. And in cases where potential fraud is then suspected, the case may be passed to an authorised officer who will consider all relevant information to determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a DWP offence has been committed.

Now, in response to the noble Lord, Lord daemon, which was a passionate speech and is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. I think if what he suspected were happening, then I think his passion will be justified. I want to try and persuade him that I think it's misplaced because, my Lords, does that decision to do such a to judge someone as having been guilty of fraud and taken action is not an automatic process. It's also not a determination that can be made by just anyone.

It can only be made by an authorised officer in DWP. If there are no reasonable grounds to suspect a DWP offences being committed, the case is passed back to the relevant benefit team or compliance team and all times during that process. As is the case now, DWP will ensure that any next steps are reasonable and proportionate. There are no immediate suspensions of benefits during the process and where appropriate, DWP will always endeavour to work with the customer to establish the facts around a benefit claim and identify any possible vulnerabilities.

I hope my position on that is clear, and I hope it's made even clearer by the government amendments debate and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what is wrong with making it statutory? The issue is that what statutory? The issue is that what she says is what now happens. What we are concerned about is what could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we are concerned about is what could happen if it isn't in the act. Isn't the act, if I may say, the requirement for reasonable suspicion requirement for reasonable suspicion that we're exercising powers under section 109 ZB is set out in that section. The fact that an account section. The fact that an account meets an eligibility indicator does not mean there are necessarily any grounds for suspicion of fraud or grounds for suspicion of fraud or other offences. It does not even mean a benefits necessarily been overpaid.

Paragraph 31 of the EVM overpaid. Paragraph 31 of the EVM schedule makes clear that eligibility indicators only indicate a benefit may have been, or may be incorrectly paid. The eligibility indicators in an eligible indicators in an eligible verification notice must be criteria which indicate that the specified relevant benefit may have been, or relevant benefit may have been, or may be incorrectly paid, so I would argue the legislation therefore clearly reflects the fact that EVM information will have to be considered alongside all other relevant information before further steps are taken.

And as I've said, steps are taken. And as I've said, DWP must consider is required to consider all relevant information to determine if there are reasonable determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence. This is not simply about. This is about existing legislation and existing powers. I hope my position on that is clear, and I hope that in the last does the government of members, the last group, have helped to make that clearer. Amendment 52 also requires that the information be reviewed by an appropriately senior person.

And obviously, we don't know exactly what the definition is of a senior person, but it's an established legal principle that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf. I would argue the information is therefore unnecessary, and I hope the noble Lord will not feel the need to press it. Amendment 67 would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVM independent reviewer would be required to undertake. Government amendments 68 and 69 put forward in an early grip on my noble friend, Lady Anderson addressed part F of that requirement by requiring the Secretary of State to provide information to the independent reviewer where it is reasonably required.

And just in case there are any concerns about that. To be clear, we foresee a close working relationship between DWP and the independent EVM reviewer by DWP gives the reviewer the information that it needs, but the government amendment makes even clear we are committed to providing necessary information and, if necessary, DWP could ask the reviewer to demonstrate why a certain piece of information is necessary for the purposes of their review, by reference of the scope of the review and the matter it has to cover, which are set out in legislation.

If the independent review of then demonstrates the information is necessary for them to carry out their review, the legislation is clear the DWP must provide it on part D of this amendment. The regarding costs incurred by business. This is a matter the government takes seriously. Were committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate and to a minimum, as the liberal model of books I know is well aware. Over the passage of the bill, we've worked very closely with UK finance to improve the bill and our draft codes of practice, and a recent meeting with ministers.

UK finance welcomed this extension. It's extensive engagement which they feel are significantly strengthened. The bill, and they indicated they were not calling for further legislative change. Crucially, my Lords, I do not regard this amendment as necessary because the independent reviewer must already assess the measures effectiveness financial institutions receiving, and even have the right to appeal a notice that's unduly onerous. And we have committed to provide a further impact assessment. 12 months after Royal assent. Part E of the amendment would require the independent reviewer to include within their annual report, and the adverse effect the EVM may have on vulnerable persons or benefit claimants access to banking services.

Now, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that protecting DWP customers, especially those who are vulnerable, is very much a priority for this government. But we don't believe this amendment is necessary. First, there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We've been clear the information does not imply any wrongdoing, and the bill makes provision to exempt financial institutions from returning suspicious activity reports in certain circumstances, if the information they have is only the result of an EVM match, and we're working with the FCA to prevent any unintended consequences.

Secondly, as I've indicated, this measure simply provides a source of data that feeds into the long standing processes in DWP, where layers of support and specialist staff already exist to ensure those who are vulnerable or have complex needs get the right support. And thirdly, we believe this measure will actually help our customers, including those who are vulnerable. It will help us to spot genuine errors in claims early, help us to take steps to correct these, and prevent large overpayments and debts building up that are recoverable.

Milord, in closing, I hope that the arguments I've put out there, I've been enough to persuade the House as to why we should move ahead, and I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, and I particularly thank Devon for his very generous words at the outset and for the noble lady Baroness for and for the noble lady Baroness for her fulsome response. I should just say to the noble Lord Palmer his
18:00
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
say to the noble Lord Palmer his comments about allowing people to get away with frauds is better. I want to make it really clear I do not want people to get away with fraud. I am as keen as anyone to make sure that fraud and error is reduced. So I please don't take away from this that I am soft on fraud. I hope my track record on fraud is well known within this house. I am entirely reassured by what the noble lady says in respect to what she and this government are intending to do, but I'm not reassured that that necessarily applies to future government's future ministers.

And therein lies the problem. This bill is not we don't we're not legislating in this House for a bill that's going to last for this government. We're legislating in this House for a bill that's going to last for many, many, many years. And I am therefore not reassured by what happens later. I think the noble Deb, and put it more starkly with his examples. But I think that's the critical point here. There is a risk of these very wide and very onerous powers being misused by future governments, and I think it is essential that we put on the face of the bill.

So there is no possibility for misunderstanding what these safeguards are. One of the points that they raised is that the bill refers to payments having been that may have been incorrectly made, and she sees that as a safeguard. I don't you could easily say that a payment that may have been incorrectly made is suspicious is suspicion. So and there's nothing to stop a Secretary of state from saying at the outset, a future secretary of State, any accounts that is flagged with an eligibility indicator should be treated as suspicious, and any go with the intrusive powers or suspend or whatever.

Nothing to stop that. And there's nothing to stop them saying. And that can be done by algorithm that can be done automatically. There's nothing in here to stop that. So I believe that this amendment 52 reflects precisely what the government is actually intending. I don't believe it creates any onerous obligations. I don't believe it's in any way prevents or restricts the identification and recovery of fraud and error. All it does is it puts the bill into the position that the noble lady has described.

And as a result of that, my Lords, I do intend to I would like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Amendment 52. Be agreed to as there was a that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be agreed to as there was a that between the say content. And the country not content. They. Are not content having.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are not content having. Content that's had. The question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House division. I will inform the House division. I will inform the House when voting is open. And voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This Yes. Yes. This is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. This is. Yes. Yes. This is. The Yes. Yes. This is. The same. Bill. Bill. No, Bill. No, I Bill. No, I think Bill. No, I think that. Bill. No, I think that. You. Bill. No, I think that. You. Know. When. When. When? Hear. Hear. I Hear. I think. Hear. I think. The other.

Oh I. Oh I.
18:07
None Portrait Division
-

My lords, my lords. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to as members of that opinion will say content the country not content. The contents will go to the right to either throw and not to contents of the left by the box. Know Know what Know what the. Answer. Answer. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. I don't. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Know, Know, I Know, I know. Know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords there have voted contents 262, not contents 157. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents haven't. Thank you, my lord. My lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Amendment 53. Baroness Sherlock, 53 to 59. Already debated, moved formally. The question is that these amendments, 53 to 59 inclusive, be agreed to. And there's a that agreed to. And there's a that opinion would say content contrary not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. Amendment 60. Lord speaker. Not moved. Amendment 61. Baroness Sherlock move formally. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to as is that amendment 61 be agreed to as many as is that opinion will say content contrary, not content.

The contents have it that amendment 62 Baroness Fox not moved amendment 63 and 64 Baroness Sherlock moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as a third party will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. Baroness creamer, amendment 65, not moved in clause 76, amendment 66. Baroness Sherlock moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content probably not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Amendment 67. Robert. Lord, sir, I listened carefully to what the noble lady had to say on
18:16
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
to what the noble lady had to say on amendment 67. All it does is add scope to the independent reviewer to cover the costs of this policy, to make sure they're reasonable and proportionate, and to make sure that any unintended consequences are identified. Just a couple of points. She mentioned UK finance, and I acknowledge that the department has had and she has had a lot of constructive discussions with UK finance during this process, and that they are broadly happy with this bill.

They are, however, not at all sure what the costs are because we still don't know exactly what it is they're being asked to do. So they are supportive of including the review of the costs in the bill. On the banking point. It's not to do with an eligibility indicator causing someone to be blanked, debunked. It's to do with the fact that these this bill creates onerous obligations that relates to benefits providers. And as I said before, as we know as PEPs ourselves, where the banks have to follow onerous rules or suffer onerous provisions, there is a risk that they decide they don't want to provide services to those people that are related to those onerous activities.

We've seen it with the situation. I know myself, it's been very difficult. So it's a slightly different point to the one she described. But as I say, I think it's really important that the costs are reviewed to make sure they are proportionate and reasonable, and that any unintended consequences are identified by the independent review. So, my Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As well. But 67 they agreed to as many of that opinion will say, content.
18:18
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That they. Enter the country not content. Not to. The content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The content. Ten times and fine. I heard three. The question will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I heard three. The question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House when voting is open inform the House when voting is open and voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Analysis. And And ahead. And ahead. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. The question is my Lord. But amendment 67.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But amendment 67. Be agreed to as members of that have been. So sorry. That's all I have to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to say. So this is. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. The question is that amendment 67 point six, when is a valid contract?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously not content. The content will go to the right by the throne. You're not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And I And I left. And I left. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I left. My And I left. My five. Seven, Seven, seven. Seven, seven. Seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 253, not contents 153. So the contents haven't. Now, now, my Lords, we come to some more government amendments already debated. And as Sherlock and amendments 68 through to 74 moved formally, the question is that these amendments be agreed to on block. amendments be agreed to on block. That's 68 to 64 inclusive, as many people say content the country not content. The contents have it.

Amendment 74 a Baroness Creamer. Not Amendment 74 a Baroness Creamer. Not merely what in clause 77 amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 75 your vote. Well, apologies. We're going to get Phil off of hearing with me this
18:29
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
get Phil off of hearing with me this this is this is this is the last of it. My Lords, these three amendments relates to the new police powers the bill confers on DWP staff. And once again, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Kramer and the noble Viscount Younger for their support on this. I'm also very grateful to the organisation justice for their help and briefings on this matter. So chapter two of plot two of the bill creates powers of search, entry and seizure by authorised DWP staff, effectively giving civil servants the same powers as police officers.

This is similar to the powers conferred on the cabinet Cabinet Office in the Public Sector Fraud Authority that we've debated previously, but with one very important difference. Unlike the PFA powers, these DWP powers would allow DWP authorised officers to use reasonable force against benefit claimants when exercising their new entry, search and seizure powers, so this would make it lawful for a DWP officer, not a police officer, a civil servant. To enter your home, seize your belongings and forcibly hold you down whilst doing so.

And let's be clear, this power of force is being sought to be used against benefit recipients. A section of the population that we've heard from the naval Lord, Lord seeker, that is recognised to be more vulnerable and to live with disabilities at a higher rate than the population at large. One of the most draconian and rights infringing things the law can do is to empower the states to inflict physical force on people and their property. The use of physical force marks a far more serious infringements than the powers of search, entry and seizure alone.

The more serious the rights infringements, the more justification is required to show it is necessary and proportionate. Is it really needed, and could less intrusive means achieve the policy intent? Unfortunately, my Lords, there has been little convincing justification so far for the need of the power to use reasonable force to be broadened to DWP officers. Why can the use of force not be left to appropriately chained police officers? Is it really necessary now the level they did? The Minister has previously made it clear that this reasonable force would only be used against property, and not against people.

To quote from committee stage, our authorised investigators in DWP will not use reasonable force against people, although they may use it against property such as breaking and open a lock filing cabinet to retrieve a laptop or other evidence and quote, well, my Lords, that's not what the bill says, at least for England and Wales. Slightly oddly, clause 78, which relates to Scotland, does in effect reduce the scope to property. So it's only England and Wales where for some reason the DWP want to be able, according to the Bill, want to be able to use reasonable force against people when governments take such draconian powers, they should be restricted to what is actually required, creating wide powers but saying it's okay, we won't actually use them all is not acceptable.

As I said previously, this bill will outlast this government and we should be very careful not to grant unnecessarily draconian powers that might be used inappropriately by a future government. Now, the Noble Lady may refer to the safeguards that the bill includes in clause 83, which provides that complaints and misconduct in relation to this new search, entry and seizure powers will be handled by the Independent Office of Police Conduct, the iOPC. That's of course welcome, but it is backward looking. They will only investigate after the event, but the extent of this oversight is delegated to regulations, including Henry VII powers, to modify how the iOPC duties and oversight provisions in place will apply.

Such delegated powers make it difficult for us to be clear about the adequacy of the oversight, which the iOPC will in fact provide, and furthermore, the capacity of the iOPC to take on a wider remit is also in doubt. An independent review of the iOPC in 2023 found it was facing significant and growing financial pressures, resulting in an increasing number of complaints actually resulting in fewer investigations being carried out. The review had notice of this proposed extension of the iOPC oversight to DWP and PSA officers, and in response it expressly cautioned, and I quote, that the Home Office should carefully consider the merits and drawbacks involved before extending the iOPC remit to cover an ever wider range of organisations.

In particular its remit. Its remit is if its remit is extended without additional resources. So a question for the noble lady will the iOPC receive those additional resources to enable to enable it to carry out this additional remit? My Lords, these three amendments provide the House with a choice 75 and 77 together, which simply remove the power to use reasonable force altogether. I don't believe the case has been made for the need for it, and I can see no reason why.

In situations where force is required, trained police officers should not take the lead. Alternatively, though, amendment 6076 is an attempt to find a compromise with the government and tries to reflect what the government itself has said, it would leave the reasonable force power in place, but it would restrict its use to force against items and property, not against persons. It would leave the option for force to be used against people, to be used by the police under existing powers, if required.

I think that very closely reflects what the noble lady at the minister said at committee as to what is actually what they believe is required. I will listen very carefully to what the noble lady has to say before deciding what action to take, which way to go in. In respect to these amendments, I remain to be convinced that DWP needs the power to use reasonable force at all, especially since the PSA, which in theory is dealing with larger and more organised frauds, does not.

Why should benefit recipients who are suspected of fraud be subject to reasonable force and organised crime? Not, it seems peculiar, but but at the very least, whatever we do, we must restrict the powers to those that are actually required to meet the objectives of this bill, i.e. Force against items and property and no more. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

87, page 46. Leave line six. My Lords, can I strongly support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I strongly support the case that has been made by. A noble Lord for a number of reasons?
18:36
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lord for a number of reasons? I strongly agree with his opening proposition that the government should only take powers that are absolutely necessary, and I'll listen as he will to the noble lady, the minister, when she sets that out. But I come at this from from some previous experience when I became immigration minister, it was in the wake of a tragedy that had occurred when force had been used to deport somebody from the United Kingdom who had sadly, in the process, lost their life.

And as a result, we set up an independent inquiry. We took these matters very seriously, and that inquiry reported and set out some very clear steps and processes that should take place when the state uses force, as is sometimes necessary, to carry out policy. And one of the things that came through very clearly was about the high standards of training and oversight that are necessary before reasonable force is used. Otherwise, the result can be people losing their lives.

And that was something as a result, which we took very seriously. And the Home Office puts a lot of effort now into training officers that carry out that deportation work to make sure that that work is properly authorised, that training takes place and it's done in a safe and reasonable way. That experience then came to the fore during the Covid pandemic, when the Department for housing, Communities and Local Government had an attempt to give similar powers to use reasonable force to local government officials, and this was to enforce some of the Covid regulations.

And, you know, my party was in power at that time, and I had some private conversations and some conversations on in the other place about the unwillingness of giving those powers to officers of the state who were not properly trained to use them, and where you did not have the proper safeguards of oversight to use them. And I'm happy to say in that particular case, I persuaded the minister, who then brought forward a revised set of regulations which no longer gave local government officers the power to use reasonable force.

And I made the case, as the noble Lord has, that if there are cases where reasonable force should be used, it should be used by a constable, somebody who is properly trained to use reasonable force, and where there's proper oversight from a proper command and control system. That means that firstly, it's used properly, but also if something goes wrong, there's a proper process to scrutinise and to learn from mistakes that are made, and certainly from what the noble Lord says about what the minister said at committee stage, but also what the explanatory notes say, which is it says that the intention is for that power to be limited, to be used for things, not people.

Then it seems to me that the legislation should reflect the policy intent, and we shouldn't just rely on ministers telling us what the power is going to be used for. I should also say I'm I'm all up to no even just to accept the compromise that he's put forward. But the danger, of course, is what if the officer of the DWP is using reasonable force to deal with things, and the person concerned tries to intervene to. Stop the reasonable force being used? You don't have to think very far forward to see that you could end up with a very difficult situation, potentially with vulnerable people, where the result is that somebody is injured or tragically loses their lives.

And I say to the minister, and I felt this very keenly when I was immigration minister, even though this particular loss of life had happened before I came into post. If this legislation was passed and a DWP official used reasonable force, and the consequence is that someone was injured or sadly lost their life, it is the minister who would be held to account at that despatch box, and people would want to know why that power was given to that official and would want to understand in incredible detail, possibly in a public inquiry, those what steps are taking place about that, the use of force being authorised, what training had taken place.

And I can tell her it's very uncomfortable experience when there have been failings and where you have to set up an independent inquiry and say the result has been that somebody has lost their life. Now in the case we were talking about, it was somebody who shouldn't have been in the United Kingdom and could have committed an offence. But even so, that shouldn't have resulted in that person losing their life. And that was a failing of the state, and it was something we took very seriously.

So I would say to the minister, firstly, I think when she comes to the despatch box to justify the legislation as it's drafted, which I don't think unless I've missed something correctly, it doesn't correctly set out the policy intent. And certainly even if she thinks the amendments that have been put down a defective, then I think it would be wise to accept them and the government to come forward and tidy them up on ping pong. But also, I don't think we should just rely on the minister saying how it's going to be used, because even if that's the minister's intent, there are many thousands of officials in the department and with the best will in the world.

If the powers are there and somebody attempts to use them, then this will end very badly. And in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in section 117, which is referred to, and I've gone and checked it, there isn't a limitation on the power just to be used against things. The reasonable force power is available to a constable for the full breadth of the thing that they're trying to do. So as far as I can see, the legislation as drafted doesn't deliver the policy intent set out in the explanatory notes.

Now, I may have got that wrong if I have delighted for the Minister to point it out, but I would just urge her for her own sake and her successors do not give power to use reasonable force to people that are not trained to use it. Don't have proper oversight. I think it's a perfectly reasonable compromise here in amendment 76. Personally, I would be more comfortable if it was just taken out completely. Even if you have to beef up the ability for the DWP officials to work with the police.

Police officers now are not saying there are never errors and there are never tragedies with the police use of powers, but they are properly trained. They have a proper structure of oversight and there's a proper independent complaints and mechanism to account for the use of that power that we set up. Recognising, as the noble Lord said, the use of force against citizens is a power of last resort for the state. So I would urge the Minister, as this debate progresses, to think carefully about whether, at the end of it, rather than effectively forcing the noble Lord without putting words into his mouth, forcing him to test the opinion of the house where they're actually, on reflection, the Minister perhaps can accept one of these amendments or offer to come back herself with something that the House will be more comfortable with.

I think as drafted at the moment, this gives too much power to ministers and goes far further than the minister herself has said in the past is the policy intent of the government. So if they enable or test the opinion of this of the House, I would be happy to support any or all of the amendments he has on the amendment paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just going to speak to amendment 75. There's a lot of
18:44
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
amendment 75. There's a lot of wisdom in what the noble Lord has said in his speech. What happens when this reasonable force is being exercised by members of the MDP? And on the way there, everything looks okay. You get into the house and before you you know where you are. Father King breaks out and in that house there is a criminal gang which is part of the fraud.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What will happen? Who? Whose number will they ring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who? Whose number will they ring that we need? Reinforcement, of course, will be nine, nine, nine. The police get up there and they The police get up there and they realise that the case has already been messed up, and it isn't very been messed up, and it isn't very easy to clear up when people think this could be robbers. No, they are not. They are not. They are not. Whatever force and power you thought Whatever force and power you thought you gave them, and you end up with a very, very awkward, difficult very, very awkward, difficult situation.

You see, the police, and in some places like in London, they may get a very bad report. But the may get a very bad report. But the police generally throughout England and Wales, people know they have and Wales, people know they have authority. The uniform has given them something very definite. So them something very definite. So when they turn up in most cases, apart from where organised crime is, British are furious. They actually British are furious. They actually get good entry. They actually get people speaking to them, talking to people speaking to them, talking to them because they're there to keep the king's peace.

The likes of me, the king's peace. The likes of me, even with a dog collar. They turn up Suspicion is quite high. Why are Zekrom? And if you're going to allow them to restrain people physically? Lord Hopkins right. Are they trained properly? Do they know the extent of the force they've got to use? And if people end up really injured in that place, he's right. The responsible person is the minister. And I actually think we should leave things as they are in relationship to arrests, even to get goods from a particular house with the police, because we know who is actually and the end is accountable.

And I know fraud is a very terrible thing. Some people have taken more money than they should have taken, but the way to do this is to trust the system as it is unknown to try and create a subdivision within the department of people who even even the getting of goods that actually could be more serious. And you know, I may I beg the Minister, please go for amendment 75. I don't know about the other two, but 75 just simply take that little section out.

So that's the power of arrest. The power of seizing the goods is still left in the hands of the police, because everybody knows they have authority to do so. And no matter what we write about this, they will still see ordinary civil people like themselves are going into the house, and they've got to give a lot of explanation. And before where you know, where you are neighbours, probably according to come and assist and help. Do the thing can have very messy.

Please. That section not line six just needs to be deleted. And then the rest of the bill can continue as it is. So may I ask the Minister please heed the warning. Don't let fraud be the way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we are amending police powers. My notes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My notes. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord, for moving these
18:48
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord, Lord, for moving these amendments. I think there genuinely key and very important to resolve before we passed this bill. I don't think they're minor or unimportant, important at all, all the time during the debates at committee. And that's continued here. There's been concern raised by some of us about the enormous state power created by this bill. Largely we focussed on things like privacy rights and so on, and these are very important. But this actually gives the crown draconian powers of force to a new body in a way that we should really go in, in my opinion, in earlier groups today, people have been very keen to say that the problem is not that this government will misuse the powers, but we have to worry about future governments.

There's a kind of lurking spectre. I think everybody knows who they're referring to. There's this sort of notion that they'll be future nasty governments out there who might misuse the powers, where this government is absolutely well intentioned. I think that's a kind of a little bit of a cop out, because it's this government that's creating an enormous new set of state powers, and this government has to be able to answer to why it wants these particular powers of force.

And I think that that's an important thing, not because I have any suspicion about the intentions of the noble Baroness, who are our ministers here? Obviously not. But nonetheless, what is the government doing decreeing this, this force and the thing that I, I'm finding most difficult to understand is I was squeamish about the nfsa having the police powers to search, enter in seas, but they did not have the reasonable force clause. So the idea that the sort of major fraudsters that the first half of the bill deals with somehow only are subject to half the force, and then suddenly you get onto the people on benefits and you need to have physical force justified.

I mean, what is that say about a set of priorities? It I you know, it's I'm not being paranoid to go what you actually think those people of the enemy, you need to kind of use physical force. So that's one thing. The second thing on that, by the way, is that the idea of this sort of physical force against the body versus physical force against property, of course, there's a distinction, but I don't know if you've ever been there when somebody has come in and started booting your furniture around or kicking down the doors, and I have and I can tell you it's an intimidating not not the DWP, but I mean, or or indeed the police.

Well, but what I mean is anyone who's been on the receiving end of somebody destroying property around you, it's intimidating, frightening, scary. So I don't even need to be worried about the bodily force. I think even having the right to do that to your property. And we return to what we had earlier discussed in an earlier amendment that these are DWP officers. We want we cannot be giving DWP civil servants. Right. I don't think there might be an on a minor training course.

Right. But I do not want them to have that power. I think it's wrong. And for them to have that power of physical force aimed at those people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious. Just one thing to note a number of times the noble lady the Minister has emphasised that the importance of this bill is being hard on fraud, and I just want to reiterate a point that Lord Volks made earlier, which is worrying about some of the aspects of this bill does not make you soft on fraud.

I, as far as I'm concerned, when public money is fraudulently obtained by criminals or malign forces acquiring money or actually people on benefits who require money they don't deserve, I consider that taking fraudulently of public money to be an attack on the public, and I think we should be hard on it. But the way that you demonstrate your hard is not by playing the hard man. You know, it's not about sort of throwing your weight around. It's about having the appropriate form of state legislation to deal with it.

And I'm afraid this part of the bill really does give me pause about what is driving this. And I really don't. I don't even think it will get us anywhere in terms of resolving the problem of people blindly stealing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public money. Minister, three direct questions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, three direct questions. First, why are people in England and
18:54
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
First, why are people in England and Wales so much nastier that they need this force, whereas the Scots don't? That is not, seems to me a very sensible distinction. It should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

either all of us or none of us. The second. Question is because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is because. I think it should be none of us. Could she explain why it is. Could she explain why it is. Suitable for DWP officers to do Suitable for DWP officers to do something against individuals who are thought to be fraudulent? Which are thought to be fraudulent? Which officers of a similar kind. Don't have the power to do if it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the power to do if it is why. That is? And the. Third question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third question. I have is. Extremely simple. Everybody who's ever had a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Everybody who's ever had a ministerial job, which involves this kind of thing, knows what Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kind of thing, knows what Lord Harper. Said so clearly that. You need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You need. trained. To do this. So could she. Answer me the. Question of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question of. training. They have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And is there a budget for that training? If her answer is not satisfactory on any of those, I suggest that she accepts the amendment which gets rid of this entirely. And let's get to a sensible world in which the police have powers which people trust them for in most places, and civil people do not have powers. We should remember the archbishop's comment, which is very simple. You know, when a policeman is there, how do you. Really know that this is a DWP individual? You've got to look at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some piece of paper, perhaps, but you don't know that. I do. Think. This is a very dangerous proposal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment because any. Exercise of. Physical powers. Must surely rest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Must surely rest. With the police. of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DWP officers who have got to be tough and able. To act as police? I mean, it's quite nonsensical,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, it's quite nonsensical, and the one thing I does worry me about this amendment is it is quite
18:57
18:57
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

from no one else. Well, my Lord, I'm very glad to have added my name to this series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord walks of freedom. And they go to the heart of one of the most serious concerns that we have raised repeatedly with the government, both inside this chamber and beyond. And I'd like to start by saying that I'm very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke from his own personal experiences, where the state has found itself having to use force.

And I'll revert to that in a moment. So we're deeply concerned by the powers being granted to DWP investigators under this bill, particularly the authorisation to use reasonable force against both property and people when exercising powers of entry, search or seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. And I do believe the noble Lord, Lord Harper referenced 2017, but I'll need to check my facts on that. These are in both name and substance. Police powers. The idea that civil servants, officials who are not police officers should be able in law to use physical force against members of the public is one that should give this House, my Lords, real pause.

It raises profound questions about the limits of state power and the safeguards that ought to accompany it. The government have said that they cannot carve out these powers from place because it's a separate Home Office legislation, but that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. And we will hear later from the noble Baroness, the minister. They have already carved out the power of arrest for both the DWP and the Cabinet Office, and they have explicitly carved out the use of reasonable force from the Cabinet Office's own pace powers under this bill, and it is therefore perfectly possible to do so.

The Bill itself provides the precedent. So, given that we do struggle to understand why the government are unwilling to make a simple, sensible and proportionate distinction, that reasonable force may be used only against property and not against people. And as it stands, the provision creates an unnecessary and troubling loophole, and one that we doubt will withstand the realities of operational use. Now, on that basis, I had formed my own questions and funnily enough, they do chime with many of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Harper and the Noble and Right Reverend Prelate, Lord centre, new and indeed noble alter demon and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

So there is support around the house. So let's let's kick off. The first question I've got is assuming that the DWP visit a property with a view to seizing property only, but a person or people there threaten violence or AR violence, but the police are not there. What are DWP officials expected to do there? And then secondly, what training would DWP officials be given to deal with any potential violence? How far with this training go? I think a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord, even.

Is it clear what is expected of them? What are the limits and what might be given to these officials for defence against physical force? Thirdly, what equipment would DWP officials be provided with to assist with restraining individuals if this arose in a scenario where only assets were being seized? And fourthly, my Lords, perhaps the biggest question of all is what happens if masses get out of hands? The police are not there or they're not there as yet. Maybe they've been called, but they're not there.

And an individual is then injured. The individual could be a DWP official or an individual within whose house the property is being seized. The police can be referred to the Police Complaints Commission, but what redress or investigations for DWP officials are in place given this scenario? So I'm really referring to legal protections beyond the technical objection. The government have yet to offer a convincing explanation of why DWP officials need this power at all. Ministers have said that the police will always be present to secure a site, and to engage with anyone against whom these powers might need to be used.

If that is the plan, then why not simply leave the use of force to the police? That is what the police are trained, equipped and legally authorised to do. And I think that point has been made around the chamber this afternoon. There is no credible justification for extending that power to departmental investigators. We believe so. I'm afraid to say that the government's response on this point, both at committee and again on report, has been wholly unconvincing. And in a democratic society, when the state seeks to arm civil servants with powers traditionally used for law enforcement, the burden of justification should be very high indeed.

And the government, we believe, have not met that test. We therefore fully support this group of amendments. They are necessary, proportionate and principled safeguards safeguards that would ensure that the powers of the state remain limited and accountable and appropriate to the task at hand. So should the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks, wish to test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. We will be supporting him. In the Lords. A lot of questions
19:02
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the Lords. A lot of questions have been asked, and I'll do my best to answer them all. But let me start by saying, by being clear what we by saying, by being clear what we are seeking to do and what we're not seeking to do, we are seeking in these powers. For DWP trained authorised officers to have the ability to use reasonable force. We want them to be able to use that against property and not against people making a distinction in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks does.

And one of his amendments is not straightforward. Despite the wishes of the noble Viscount, Viscount Younger. Secondly, just a thirdly, just to say that a number of noble lords have said that they would be horrified to see civil servants using powers that are really meant for the police. I am sure that the members of the previous government will be aware that HMRC already has these powers. The Border Force has these powers. The Gangbuster Licensing Authority has these powers, but this is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unprecedented. And finally, I'm sure he didn't. Look, I was actually approached

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, I was actually approached this in the spirit of I haven't spoken on this bill before, and I was actually genuinely trying to be was actually genuinely trying to be helpful to the minister. So two things she just said in response to the debate that you can't make a very easy distinction between the very easy distinction between the use of force against things and people. Well, that's exactly the point. If you give these powers to point. If you give these powers to use them against things, you're going to get drawn into using against people.

I am very well aware against people. I am very well aware that Border Force have these powers, but the point I was making in my contribution is, yes, they do have contribution is, yes, they do have these powers. And if she talks to her noble friend sat next to her, she will be able to find out that there's extensive training for Border Force and immigration enforcement officers to use that enforcement officers to use that force. As a result of that independent inquiry, we had this extensive training and power before they're allowed to use them.

And that is the council that I'm urging on is to be cautious.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on is to be cautious. My Lords, I'm actually going to come on. All of these questions are going to give me a moment to do. So. going to give me a moment to do. So. I just haven't got that was my opening paragraph. I'm going to come on and answer the points one by one. on and answer the points one by one. So I hope you'll be patient with me. Finally, I just want to say I'm sure he didn't mean to do this, but the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord box and some other speakers is that DWP seeks to use these powers against an average benefit claimant who has accidentally over claimed £20 on their benefit.

Can I start by making this really clear? This cannot be used in those circumstances. This power will be used by DWP, has a reasonable belief that someone has intentionally committed sophisticated, often high value fraud against DWP. These operations seek to find evidence of criminality that is not obtainable through DWP s other criminal investigation powers such as this information gathering powers, which would be not the normal route for obtaining evidence in investigations into Basic. To use these powers, we have to seek a warrant to get a warrant from the court.

The warrant application will go to the court. The court were the ultimate arbiters of whether a warrant is approved or not, based on a relevant justification. So, my Lords, those warrants have to be used for investigating serious, organised criminality. And if those offences tend to be high value and complex and will also for that to happen, these will need to be related to these to be reasonable suspicion related to indictable offences. We are not talking about individuals who have accidentally been overpaid a small amount of money.

Now let me tell you through the specifics that have been raised, I do understand what the noble Lord, Lord box wants to do with his amendments, and that and his desire to limit the use of reasonable force to property and not people. However, the use of reasonable force is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. And as the noble Lord Lord pointed out, that does not distinguish between the use of force between items and persons, there is no precedent for breaking down the pace power of reasonable force to restrict it to people or items.

And as I will go on to explain in a moment, to do so could result in unintended consequences. But DWP has been clear from the outset its intention is that reasonable force will be used only against things, not people, that will be made clear in guidance and training. The power will enable DWP authorised investigators to use reasonable force to access locked cabinets and digital devices once they are lawfully on a precedent, on a premises. Without that ability to secure evidence, DWP will be continued.

Will have to continue to be reliant on the police who would need to remain on the premises for the duration of the search activity. So, my Lords, if you imagine a situation where a significant, for example, a significant universal credit fraud has taken place, there are a lot of potentially a lot of papers, either in filing cabinets in a in a premises or on devices, and the police affect entry to a premises. They secure the premises, the police can stay there and we can ask them to carry on picking up every single file we want.

Under DWP, officials can tell them if that is right or not, when they could be out there actually tackling real crime and out on the streets protecting people. Or they could spend that time in there while DWP goes through searching devices. Now, I do understand that the intention behind the amendments Lord this I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remind them all of this report. Well, I know, but I'm trying to ask you some sensible questions ask you some sensible questions because the noble Lords is going to have to make a decision about whether to move his amendment. And at the moment he was talking about amendment 76. I'm I've be more encouraging him to move 75 and take miss out completely. So she's just said about the police having to stay there to pick up files and devices, why would they need to use force to why would they need to use force to do that? I mean, that's a that's an administrative exercise.

I think she's she's in danger here. I think of defending the indefensible in a very complicated way, which is unnecessary. We're trying to actually be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his help. And I'll try and manage for now. But if I could just manage for now. But if I could just try and say to him to use to open a filing cabinet or to open a device without the consent of the owner, mean requires requires using mean requires requires using reasonable force against that, I fully accept he doesn't think DWP should have any of those powers. I should have any of those powers. I accept that I'm going to try to make a case and I hope you'll bear with me.

Allow me to move through the me. Allow me to move through the arguments. Make a case as to why I think it's necessary. If he if I can't persuade him, I accept. I can't persuade him and he will go into the other division lobby. But please, I hope you allow me to go through and explain why I think this through and explain why I think this is necessary and why I think it's proportionate. Just to add, I said one of the questions is that one of the risks of the approach that's being taken, but try to limit the use of reasonable force are set out by pace, could have the unintended consequence, such as removing authorised investigators common law right to self-defence, for example, if they were physically threatened during a search and seizure activity.

Now, clearly the safety of our authorised investigators is paramount and they, like anyone else, must have the right to defend themselves as threatened. I was asked about we will be taking a number of steps, of course, to ensure staff member safety. That includes conducting risk assessments on application for the warrant and during the search and seizure activity itself, and equipping staff with critical safety equipment and protective clothing. At the law. Lord Harper asked about training. I can tell him this that all DWP authorised investigators will be required to complete training to the equivalent standard of the police before they can use these Pace powers, and I can assure the noble Lord even that yes, money will be made available to pay for that.

We will not be expecting people to use these powers if they have not had appropriate training. That was a good question, and I'm I'm pleased to answer it. In addition, in addition, DWP criminal investigators undertake investigative training as part of the government counter fraud. Excuse me, excuse me. Counter for profession number Lords. We do not want it. Also have to do that. They have to have training to industry standards before they can be considered, even for authorised investigator status, and that will ensure staff are benchmarked to the same standard.

Now we will not have the power of arrest and I would remind the noble Viscount, Viscount Younger, that the previous government's fraud plan, including the version put out in 2024 when he was standing here, proposed not only the powers we have here, but the DWP staff should have the powers of arrest. We decided that was not appropriate. We do think the power to open a bank, as I've said, to have reasonable force against property is reasonable. So I think we have taken what I think is a proportionate view in a situation which was described where the DWP arrive at a premises where the police are not there and find that entry is obstructed, the policy of whether they should remove themselves from any potential danger and request police presence.

Now, I would also say that the Lord Lord box mentioned oversight. We will be commissioning His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services to inspect the use and effectiveness of these powers in England and Wales, and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. These inspections can focus on any part of the end to end criminal investigation, and their report will be published by the Secretary of State. In addition, the Independent Office for Police Conduct will be responsible for reviewing any serious incidents or complaints in relation to these powers in England and Wales.

But the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner responsible in Scotland and my Lords, that. I think explains that on the iOPC while I'm here, there are two other questions asked. One, I think the noble Lord Lovelock said the IPC regs were Henry the eighth power. I'm advised they are not a Henry the eighth power because it does not seek to amend or repeal primary legislation. The proposed amendments to part two, the Police Reform Act, are contained in this paper bill itself and on the on the question of funding, DWP has secured the necessary agreements with the iOPC and will continue to work closely and in partnership with them to ensure their needs are considered, including financial arrangements.

The regulations will make provisions as to payment for the service, and also permit the lawful disclosure of sensitive files and information relating to the exercise of the functions and powers. So I hope that reassures him on that point. On the other questions that have been mentioned, Scotland. Just to be clear, I think that the drafting in schedule four for Scotland is intended to clarify that force cannot be used to compel individuals to provide information when required to do so by a court protection order.

This mirrors Pace, as it applies in England and Wales, on the exercise of reasonable force when executing search warrants. The provisions in the paper Bill in both Scotland and England and Wales are comparable, so I hope that reassures noble lords who think that we think people in Scotland are less dangerous than people in England and Wales. I can assure them that is not the case. Noble Lords have asked about why different, why the difference between PSA and DWP, but primarily this is a matter of scale and a tailored approach has been adopted by DWP and PSA.

PSA is likely to do a smaller number of investigations. The scale at which EDP operates would be a very, very different use of police resource than it would be in the case of the PSA, and therefore we think it is appropriate. And just adjusting for that. And finally, just I think somebody mentioned that the I'm sorry, I've forgotten which number. Lord asked about whether or not we'd be using this against vulnerable people and benefit claimants being vulnerable. Again, just another form of reassurance is that the law requires any warrant application to include information about any vulnerable individuals that may be present on the premises, and as a result, DWP has to conduct risk assessments before even applying to the court.

And my Lords, I do understand the comments that have been made. I hope I've been able to reassure noble Lords that these amendments that are proposals are proportionate, and on the basis of that, I urge the Lord to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who've taken part in this in this debate in particular, can I thank debate in particular, can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for giving us the benefit of his his real life experience on this and the very powerful example that he gave
19:13
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
very powerful example that he gave us of how this can go wrong. I confess, I am not persuaded of the need for the DWP officers to have the ability to use reasonable force, and I am tempted, but to go down the route and able to offer a suggestion of removing it altogether. However, I do want to be constructive. I don't want to be ruining the bill, and so I do think I can live with a situation where the bill tries to mirror what the noble lady has said.

The powers will be used for unlimited to that. Now, if she thinks there are unintended consequences from that, those can be fixed at the later stage of the bill, either at third reading. And can I just make the point now? I think it is outrageous that third reading of this bill is in less than two days time from now on Thursday. That is not the way we do things in this House. That does not give us time to sit down and try and work out things.

So just to put that on the record, I think it is just wrong. I was slightly confused by one of the things that lady said. She described the situation where the police are there throughout, and that that was a waste of police time, where they could be off dealing with real crime. But just the sentence before she told us that they're only going to use this in cases of sophisticated, high value fraud, is that not real crime? So I confess I'm a bit confused by that.

But anyway. Well. But anyway, I. I nothing I've heard has changed my view. The ability to use reasonable force against people is appropriate for DWP officials, particularly if the police are likely to be there all along anyway. So, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 75, but I will when the time comes. Test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opinion of hers on amendment 76. Is it, your Lordship, exposure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it, your Lordship, exposure to amendment 75 be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn in schedule

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is by leave withdrawn in schedule for amendment 76 looks formally. The question is that amendment 76

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content and. Content. Content. No. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Okay. The question will be decided by a division. I will tell the House when division. I will tell the House when voting is open. Voting is now open.
19:16
None Portrait Division
-

The. The. Intelligence. Advice Advice and. Yeah, Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My vote. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. As many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as are that opinion will say content complete not content. Not that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right level. It's room, not contents. To the left by Barbara. the left by Barbara. How How do How do you. How do you. How do you. I. I, I, I. Yeah Yeah I. I. I. I. I. I. Stand Go. Go. I. Go.

I. Yes, Go. I. Yes, yes. Go. I. Yes, yes. Go. I. Yes, yes. Yes. Yes. I, Yes. I, I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yes. Up to. The question is the amendment 76

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents 212, not contents 144. So the contents have it. You tell them. You should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You tell them. You should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have done the 75.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 77 Lord box not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 77 Lord box not moved. Amendment 78 and 79, 80, 81, 82,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 78 and 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85. Baroness Sherlock move. Formally, the question is that these amendments be agreed to on these amendments be agreed to on block. As many as are about opinion will say content contrary not will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. In clause 89, amendment 86. Viscount
19:27
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Younger of lady. My Lords, these amendments 86, 87

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these amendments 86, 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Finn, concerned the independence and effectiveness of the independent effectiveness of the independent reviewer. Established under clause 89 of the Bill. They are what we might say were bite size amendments, but they go to the heart of what independence and accountability really mean in practice. The first of our amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the independent person to review only certain time frames.

The second would change the wording of clause 89, so that the Secretary of State must, rather than may provide information to that independent person for the purposes of their review. And we bring these amendments forward in the spirit of consistency and fairness, we welcome the government's amendments to clauses 66 and 76, both of which change the wording from May to must when referring to the ministers duty to provide information to independent reviewers. And those are important and positive changes. I'd like to say the government have rightly recognised that independent scrutiny cannot be meaningful unless reviewers have the information they need, and that ministers must therefore be under an obligation, not merely a discretion, to provide it.

So we entirely agree with that principle, which is, of course, one that we champion consistently throughout committee and which garnered the support of many noble Lords present. But we are concerned, my Lords, that, having been adopted on clause 66 and clause 76, it has not been applied consistently across the bill. So clause 89, which deals with the independent review of powers exercised under sections 109 A to 198 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, including, amongst other things, the power to enter and inspect premises under section 109 90 still use the weaker May formulation.

This means that the Secretary of State is not required to share information with the independent reviewer, and can determine which periods or activities the reviewer is permitted to examine by laws. When we're talking about an independent review mechanism, we don't believe this is good enough. If the government accepts, as they now have, the independent reviewers examining the Cabinet Office's functions under clause 65 and the DWP eligibility verification mechanism set out in clause 76 should have an enforceable right.

The information they need, then surely the same must apply to those reviewing the dwp's use of these further powers. Under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, we think there is no justification for having one standard of transparency for one and not the other. The government amendments on their own subject, the PFA and the Minister of the Cabinet Office to different standards to the DWP, which my Lords surely cannot be right. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, based on the government's amendments, must provide information to the independent reviewer for the purposes of an investigation into the exercise of the Minister's functions.

Under this part, however, it's different for DWP and only must provide this information to the independent reviewer when it comes to the EVM. For other independent reviews. Under this part, the Secretary of State still may only provide this information. Our amendments, my Lords, therefore, seek to ensure consistency across the Bill that all independent reviewers, wherever they sit and whichever powers they oversee, have the same right to obtain information and conduct their work free from ministerial direction. So, my Lords, we understand that some of the concerns raised by the government at this point relate to the Dwp's capacity to manage the workload involved in responding to requests for information.

And as the Minister has said to me in the past, to the risk of inadvertently disclosing material relating to live cases, those are legitimate operational challenges. But we think that they're not really we know they're not unique to the DWP. The PSA will face precisely the same issues. Yes, it be under the same must obligation that we propose should apply here. And the difference, as we understand it, is simply that the DWP considers this requirement to be too much work. My Lords, that is not an adequate reason to weaken oversight if a department does not have the capacity to be overseen, then it should build that capacity, not avoid the oversight altogether.

The review in this clause will have the duty to review the use of the sharpened powers of the bill, exercised in the real world and affecting real people. They must be subject to proper, independent scrutiny. So while I have sympathy with the Minister's practical decisions, this bill is not just for the present moment. It will shape the framework for years to come, which chimes with some points that the noble Lord, Lord Vaulks made in the previous group. We should not exempt the DWP from the same level of accountability as every other body, simply, simply because from now it finds oversight inconvenient.

More fundamentally, these amendments speak to the integrity of the oversight process itself. The independent reviewer must not be directed by the very body they are reviewing. If ministers can tell reviewers what periods they may examine or withhold information, then that review is. Independence is only performative. It exists in name, my Lords, and not in subject substance. My Lords, the government have already accepted this argument in principle, and I've said earlier that they have accepted that may should become must in relation to clauses 66 and 77.

So all we're asking is at the same logic and same standard and the same commitment to genuine accountability be applied to clause 89. I therefore hope the Minister will recognise the consistency and common sense behind these amendments, and accept that the may to must principle must apply equally here. If the government really support the principle they've alluded to, then they will vote with us on these benches to make this consistent across the bill. And I give notice that I may wish to test the opinion of the House on this point through means of a division.

Moving on to amendment 88, my Lords, this proposal would require the independent reviewer not only to assess how the powers under this bill are being exercised, but to report explicitly on expenditure and recovery, and to provide Parliament with a cost benefit assessment of the operation of the act. My Lords, these measures are not intended to frustrate the government's ambition to tackle fraud. We have reflected this in giving the government five years to get set up and running before an initial report is required.

This amendment, therefore, that's 88, strengthens that ambition by ensuring that it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that the policies are working. This is paramount to any democracy we believe, and I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognises the importance of this. In her response. Amendment, proposed clause 89,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment, proposed clause 89, page 54. Leave outlines 1820.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 86. This rise very briefly to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This rise very briefly to support these three amendments. Particularly amendment 87, which relates to
19:34
19:36
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
amendment. I think I'm going to start by just very gently reminding him of something he said. He made a comment and said that we shouldn't avoid oversight because it's inconvenient to see the member that when his government led and represented by him, introduced equivalent powers to many of these in the DPD, there was literally no oversight in it at all, no independent oversight at all anywhere in that bill. So I'm very happy to respond to the way we put it in, but I hope the House will give us credit for having actually put in significant, independent oversight.

And I would encourage him to remember that. Now, having said that, while I understand the rationale for amendments 86 to 88, we don't believe that they're appropriate or necessary. DWP some tension for clause 89 is to appoint an independent external inspectorate body to inspect Dwp's end to end criminal investigations, his Majesty's Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services has provided this function for public services for over 160 years. DWP have committed to commissioning HMRC office because they're the body best placed to provide an independent inspection role in England and Wales, and similarly, His Majesty's is Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland.

For Scotland. I can assure the House that DWP are committed to ensuring the right level of scrutiny for these powers, and will follow existing McPherson HMRC Scotland's processes and guidance, which requires transparency and accountability, but not these Inspectorate bodies, bring huge experience of working in this area, providing robust inspections to other similar bodies. That is why DWP will work with them to agree mutually that each inspection takes place over a suitable period, so that they're assessing and reporting on a period which properly, realistically reflects Dwp's use of search and seizure powers.

DWP has worked closely with both HMRC FRS and HMRC Scotland, and we understand that sharing information is an integral part of the inspection process. That's one of the department is committed to providing all relevant information so that meaningful inspections can be carried out. But, my Lords, it's important to highlight the unnecessary risk. Measurement 86 and 87 create. These amendments could result in sharing information with the inspectorate that could then become disclosing material and a live investigation, potentially jeopardising the outcome. Because of the range of investigatory techniques used during DWP criminal investigations, it's important the Secretary of State retains discretion not to provide information on the consequences of sharing that information outweigh the benefit to inspection, for instance to protect customers or prevent compromising future prosecutions depending on the circumstances.

Examples of such sensitive material not suitable for sharing might include material given in confidence, details about witnesses or other persons who may be in danger if identities are revealed. Material revealing the location of any premises or other place used for surveillance. Material relating to the private life of a witness. And my Lords, I hope that explains why I cannot accept this amendment. I turn now to amendment 88, which seeks to extend the remit and scope of an independent person appointed under clause 89.

We have already confirmed this will be HMRC and HMRC Scotland. They'll provide an additional safeguard to ensure DWP is using these powers proportionately and in line with their intended purpose. However, although very impressive in their fields, it's clearly not within the remit of the inspectorate to assess expenditure amounts recovered and conduct cost benefit assessments of the various measures and the bill. But when audit, the Office of Budget Responsibility has certified the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits contained in this bill and separately, our impact assessment clearly outlines the estimated costs and how we will scale up our roll out to deliver the savings and commits to monitoring and evaluation.

As part two of the bill. I would also remind the House of the existing reporting mechanisms for dwp's, fraud and error activities that make this amendment unnecessary. In the Dwp's Annual Report and accounts, the Department reports on the savings made from our fraud and error activities, including savings made from activity across our counter Fraud and targeted case review teams. In addition to this, we also report on our debt recovery totals and debt stock. The departmental Annual report and accounts are reviewed and scrutinised by the National Audit Office, which publishes a report on the accounts and provides independent assurance to Parliament on the proper use of public funds.

And finally, a question was asked about what's different between DWP and PSA, and lauds the type and nature of DWP and the very criminal investigations are likely to be very different. That also means the risks and decisions involved in disclosing sensitive material are different for each organisation. DWP, due to the function it plays, is likely to have significantly more individuals who may be vulnerable, and DWP considers that disclosing sensitive material relating to those persons is not an appropriate approach for DWP to adopt.

For that reason, DWP must be able to withhold material in such cases to ensure there is no detriment or risk to vulnerable persons who may be placed at risk, but also to conclude DWP is committed to transparency and delivering this Bill and its savings. But I do not think it's helpful or necessary to ask the Inspectorate to step outside of their existing remit to the to the rules already given place. I therefore urge the law to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not my Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response, but I'm afraid that we're still not persuaded on the
19:41
19:42
None Portrait Division
-

House up. Voting is now open. Clear the bar. The The law. Yes. Yes. Okay. I. Think. This is. Very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy. Okay. Us. Us with us. The question is with amendment 87

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is with amendment 87 be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content contain not opinion will say content contain not content. The contents will go to the right purpose, but not content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I. You. I. You. You Can. Can. I. I I. I. This I. This way, I. This way, this I. This way, this way I. This way, this way ladies. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes yes. Question is amendment 87 be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is amendment 87 be. Agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Come Come on Come on please Come on please before. I first. Read out this paragraph. I do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do that. You that got the result for us. All right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All right. My Lords they have voted contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords they have voted contents 138. Not contents 138. There being in the of votes in accordance with in the of votes in accordance with Standing Order number 55, which provides no proposal to amend a bill provides no proposal to amend a bill in the form in which in which it is before the House shall be agreed to, unless there's a majority in favour unless there's a majority in favour of such amendment. I declare the amendment disagreed.

Make a younger amendment 88 member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make a younger amendment 88 member 88 not moved. My Lords, this seems to.
19:54
19:55
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
this amendment, which has the support of Baroness Ham. We to whom I'm extremely grateful. There were also other noble Lords who who would have wished to support the amendment, but missed a rather brief moment. We had today tabled amendments to this bill. My Lords, the amendment does not go as far as the Malthouse amendment in the other place, which would have given courts the power to decide whether a successful appeal would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take effect. Immediately or not. Under our amendment, following a successful amendment, following a successful appeal by the deprived person, the deprivation order would continue to have effect in respect of the have effect in respect of the deprived person, but it would not have effect in respect of any children of that person born after the original deprivation order was made. As the noble Lord, the made. As the noble Lord, the minister said at second reading, it is already the case that where the child has acquire citizenship child has acquire citizenship through the parent before the deprivation order, the child's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deprivation order, the child's citizenship is unaffected, even if amended, as we propose, the bill. Would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would. Still fully address the two risks identified by the government as being the main drivers. Of this legislation. First, the deprived person could still be barred from person could still be barred from returning to the United Kingdom. In his wind up speech to the noble Lord, the minister concluded by Lord, the minister concluded by asking a noble Lords willing to take the risk to let the person in under the risk to let the person in under this amendment, deciding whether to take that risk or not would be a matter for the government.

The matter for the government. The second risk identified by the minister was that a deprived person could tactically renounce any other citizenship they might have, so that even if the government were to succeed in having the deprivation order reinstated through further appeals, the person would have a chance to bring himself or herself within the scope of the stateless provision in section 44 of the British Nationality Act 1981, this risk would not arise with the amendment. The deprivation order would continue to have effect against the deprived person throughout the entire appeal process, and a tactical renunciation of any further citizenship would not place the deprived person in a better position.

We all appreciate that separating the citizenship position of the principal from that of the child is not an ideal solution, and may pose practical difficulties, including guardianship arrangements. But families would at least have the option of seeking to put these arrangements in place. We must not forget that what we are discussing is the position of children who, following the successful appeal, according to our courts, would ordinarily be entitled to British citizenship. If the government is successful in the further appeals, an argument against the amendment might be that a non-British child would have temporarily benefited from British citizenship and possibly spent a few years living in Britain with a British family.

If the government is unsuccessful in its further appeals. However, the argument against the bill without the amendment is, in my view, even stronger in this scenario. Without the amendment, we would have left a British child stranded in places including prisons or camps, where his or her rights

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. Ham. We had a very useful meeting with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the minister, and I'm grateful to him and to his officials for. Meeting. Us. A concern that was raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us. A concern that was raised. At that meeting. Was that. The amendment might necessitate certain consequential necessitate certain consequential amendments of section two, one A of the British Nationality Act. In the British Nationality Act. In effect, what would be required is inserting a cross-reference in that inserting a cross-reference in that provision to the new subsection of section 40 A, which the amendment section 40 A, which the amendment would introduce. This would be a limited and manageable consequential

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limited and manageable consequential amendment. I suspect this will not persuade the government, which I understand remains a closed. To this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To this. Amendment for other reasons. My Lords, we appreciate that this Bill has high level of support across both government and opposition both government and opposition benches. These measures may affect a small number of individuals, but it small number of individuals, but it is a growing number of individuals and they do raise important issues of principle. And that's why we consider they're certainly worth us debating them. Again, I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. Proposed clause one, page one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause one, page one, line 25 at end insert three. Nothing in this section shall affect the in this section shall affect the swing. The appeal period of a child of the person who makes an appeal of the person who makes an appeal under inserted section two. Be a member one.
20:00
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was happy to add my name to the noble Lords. He's explained the position very seriously, very thoroughly. It may be worth my repeating that the number of children increasing, perhaps, as he said it is, is necessarily limited. As I think about children born between the deprivation order and the outcome of an appeal or the expiry. Of the period for an appeal. But the risks. To such children may be very considerable.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the fact that. Only a small number of children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only a small number of children may be affected in my mind, does not affect the importance of this affect the importance of this amendment, though I appreciate to some people that may suggest that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some people that may suggest that the problem is less serious than. The noble. Lord, and. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regard it. I don't think I need to repeat what the noble Lord has to repeat what the noble Lord has said, but that is not to say that I am not looking forward to hearing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am not looking forward to hearing speeches and support from noble. Lords. Who are in. The chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise. I wasn't able to speak at the second reading, but I've read the second reading, but I've read the debate. I've listened to the speeches in support of the amendment, of course, and as a
20:02
20:02
20:03
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment, and I don't intend to about. In respect of children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In respect of children. At the second reading. But we are absolutely clear here that without a absolutely clear here that without a measure of comfort, the bill will have consequences for a very limited number of children, and it will reverse the protection which had been offered to them under the Supreme Court case on Thursday. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as as the noble Lord. Have just. Said, the we are looking at limbo

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said, the we are looking at limbo status for some children in. This matter. And a child whose. Parents citizenship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parents citizenship. Deprivation was ruled unlawful by a court could have their citizenship. Status left in limbo citizenship. Status left in limbo until their parents final appeal is determined. That we had a debate at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determined. That we had a debate at second reading about how long that period would be. There were. Some views that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There were. Some views that. The justice system was so quick that it might flash through in a number of weeks, and there were number of weeks, and there were other views that it could take a number of months and even longer than that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And during that and an and an extended. Period of uncertainty, the child could be exposed. To serious.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To serious. Harm and. Death without. The. Ability to enter the UK and reach

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ability to enter the UK and reach safety or obtain consular assistance. And as I explained in assistance. And as I explained in the second reading, this is not a hypothetical matter. There are and hypothetical matter. There are and have been cases where where this this situation has arisen. It may be a small number of people and it may be a small number of children, but we can't take the risk with the with the certainty that that these children were not face those those risks in the future.

So this amendment provides a minimum safeguard to prevent the most serious consequences for those children who might be in court by this, this bill, while obviously the most vulnerable British children, it ensures that the best interests of the child are prioritised and the effect of the bill do not unjustly threaten the lives and rights of British children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Bird Army and the noble lady Baroness Hanway, for tabling the amendments and for their
20:05
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
amendments and for their contributions in the debate today, and I'm grateful also, if I may say so, for the contribution of the noble Lord Jay, who raised this type of issue with me privately in meetings that we've had previously. And I was also pleased to meet both the noble Lords. We've tabled the amendments. The noble lady who's tabled the amendments privately again to discuss their concerns. It is an important issue, and it's one I hope I can address today. I'm also grateful for the support of my noble friend Baroness Lister, who, as the regular recipient of the ten year activity on my own legs, I appreciate her persistence in these matters.

I want to be clear, if I may, that I think this is an important point to going back to what the noble Lord said and his introductory remarks that where a child already holds British citizenship, the subsequent deprivation of a citizenship does not change that. And that's a that's a given, which I know was a concern of the noble Lord Jay previously. But that is a given. The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and noble lady would mean as indeed he said in his introductory remarks, that we would need to make changes to sections of the British Nationality Act 1981, which relates to the acquisition of nationality in order for the amendment to have its desired effect, and such changes are whether we wanted to do them or not, out of scope of the bill, so I'm not able to do them in this bill today.

In any case, the amendment could not be limited to cases where the parents appeal is ultimately successful and their citizenship is reinstated. The amendment would apply to cases where a higher court upholds the Home Secretary's decision. This undermines, in my view, the integrity of the immigration and nationality system and could give rise to cases where a child is temporarily a British citizen, only to lose that status through no fault of their own. If their entitlement to another nationality was removed because of that country's laws prohibiting dual citizenship, there is also a risk that the child could end up being left stateless.

Now, in accordance with the duty under section 55 of the border, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, consideration of a child's best interest is a primary consideration in immigration and nationality decisions which affect them, and in the light of the representations that I've had from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness privately in our discussions, I want to say to them today that the government will, of course, monitor the impact of this bill, including the impact of children during the course of its implementation downstream.

And if there are lessons to be drawn from that, then obviously we will do that. And I mentioned during the bill's second reading last week that the independent Chief inspector of Borders and Immigration under the Borders Act 2007 can assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the migration and border system, which includes the deprivation, power and in answer to the noble Lord German, who spoke from the Liberal Democrat from bench. I have no doubt that if there was a challenge in expediting appeals, if there was a challenge on children being impacted, that without wishing to assess the inspectors program for him, I have no doubt that the independent inspector would examine those matters.

The bill on the acts of the UK Borders Act 2007 empowers the Borders Inspector to define their own inspection program, something that the departing inspector David Boyle refers to in his most recent annual report as a cornerstone of the independence of the role. So I have no doubt again that in the event of challenges appearing and with representations from noble Lords or members of Parliament or indeed voluntary organisations, that that could well be an area where the Inspector would focus their attention.

So I thank the noble Lord and noble lady for prompting the worthwhile debate. I know that I'm grateful to the noble Lord. I know has not spoken today, but I think he's in broad support of the position that I would take on this. But I trust for the reasons I've set out, that they understand why the government cannot support the amendment, and therefore I respectfully ask that the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be withdrawn. Well, the noble Lord responds,
20:10
20:10
20:11
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
The effect during.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An appeal of an order under section 40 of the British Nationality Act, and within that theme, umbrella of effect. It would be entirely possible, in my view, to have a consequential amendment on section to one A concerning the section to one A concerning the acquisition of citizenship during the appeal period by children. The the appeal period by children. The second point concerns the extended period of uncertainty then noble Lord, the minister referred to. There is, of course, another way of looking at this.

We if the looking at this. We if the government is unsuccessful, ultimately in the litigation, we will be faced with an unknown number of individuals who are now children, but who will at that point be a but who will at that point be a young teenagers coming back to this country, in some cases returning to this country, having spent many this country, having spent many years, formative years in prisons or camps in north east Syria and elsewhere. So even from a national security point of view, we may end security point of view, we may end up in a rather challenging position.

And then the final point is to thank And then the final point is to thank the Minister for his comment on on the impact and on the commitment by the government to keep the implementation of this bill under review. We will have an opportunity to return both to the question of the implementation of the Bill to the position of children in particular, affected by the deprivation of citizenship, but more generally to the policy of the government on deprivation of citizenship.

And with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by. Leave withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave withdrawn? The question is that clause one stand part of the bill, as many as the that Britain was a content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the that Britain was a content. Country not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many two stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content country not content. The contents have it. The question is that this have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content the country not content the contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings.

The the committee's proceedings. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House will now resume. My Lords, I beg to move that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now received. The question is that this, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this, my Lords, that's my mistake. I did have something to say before the noble Lord, Lord Chancellor Flint. My Lords, the committee of the whole Lords, the committee of the whole House, to which the deprivation of citizenship orders effect during the pale Bill was committed, has gone pale Bill was committed, has gone through the same, and it has directed me to report it to your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lordships without amendment. My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now received.
20:14
None Portrait HOUSE RESUMES
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

report be now received. The question is that this report be now received. As many as of that opinion would say content the opinion would say content the country not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill be now read a third time. The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as that. When you say content the that. When you say content the country and the country, not content with the contents, have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Tim, thank you. To move the bill will be read a third time. Now just say on behalf of the whole Now just say on behalf of the whole House, that the safety and security of those in the UK is of the government's highest priority. Deprivation is an important and Deprivation is an important and effective tool, but I want to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill today, to the debates on the Bill today, and I want to pay particular thanks to the security and intelligence services, law enforcement and others who work day in, day out to protect who work day in, day out to protect this country.

I want to thank my colleague, Minister Dan Jarvis, my colleague Lord, in the whips office, and also to thank the noble Lord and also to thank the noble Lord Davis of Gao, Lord of Ely, Lord Jim and Baroness Hanway, and indeed all of those members who've tabled of those members who've tabled amendments and spoken to those amendments. I also think it's just important to put on record that the important to put on record that the policy, legal and bill teams in the Home Office have worked tirelessly to make this bill possible, as have to make this bill possible, as have the team in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

And I thank them and the staff of this House, as ever, for their professionalism in helping us get this bill through both Houses of Parliament. And I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pass. The question is that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. The question is that this now pass. The question is that this bill do now pass as many as of that, and you will say content the country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. The contents have it. My Lords. As we were not due to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we were not due to return to the bill until 2033 33. I beg. To move that the House. Do now adjourn during pleasure. Until that time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Until that time. The question is that the House to now adjourn during pleasure until 2033. As many as of that of anyone, say content contrary not content.
20:17
None Portrait HOUSE ADJOURNED DURING PLEASURE until
-

20:34
None Portrait HOUSE ADJOURNED DURING PLEASURE until 20.33
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

You You have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You have to You have to read. My Lords report of the public authorities fraud, error and
20:34
20:34
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it in clause 91, amendment 89. Baroness Sherlock. Thank you. Take two, my Lords, I still rise to move. Amendment. still rise to move. Amendment. Government. Government members 8991, 101 and 102. Starting with the amendments 89 and 91. I tabled these because it's been clear that despite all my attempts at assuring noble ordered earlier stages, concerns still continue to be raised as though Dwp's new recovery powers could be applied to debtors who are in receipt of benefits.

Indeed, I think that may be the concern of the noble lady Baroness Kramer, as the explanatory statement on her amendment 92 in this group relates to the use of these powers on benefit claimants. To be clear, my Lords, this is not the case. Dwp's new debt recovery measures can only be applied to debtors who are no longer receiving DWP benefits and where we cannot recover from pay. But to further assure noble Lords and everybody else, we are making even clearer in the legislation for new section 80 A that the new powers cannot be applied to those receiving benefits from my department.

This provides further clarification that a direct reduction order, or immediate disqualification from driving order must always be suspended or revoked. If the debtor subsequently receives a benefit payment from DWP. While that order is ongoing, I hope that provide further assurance to the House. Turning to amendment 101, this is a procedural amendment regarding the technical mechanisms for DWP to make applications to the court for disqualification orders. The Bill already allows DWP to make an application to the Magistrates Court for a suspended or immediate DWP Disqualification Order.

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a regulation making power, enabling DWP to set out, at a later stage, any practical steps necessary for those applications to be made and considered. This engages commonplace procedure rules dealing with practical matters to ensure cases of progressed fairly and efficiently for all parties involved, like the type of form used or how notices and orders are served on parties. And amendment 102 is a technical amendment which ensures the term processing is correctly understood in new section, and which establishes the DWP Debt Code of practice.

It's a small change to provide clarity by linking the term processing to the definition already set out in section three four of the Data Protection Act 2018. This helps avoid any ambiguity and interpretation and ensures consistency with existing data protection legislation. But also none of these government amendments change the existing policy intent for how the powers will be used, or the safeguards that are set out in the bill. These will continue to be powers of last resort, to be used only after DWP has made all reasonable attempts to negotiate an affordable and sustainable repayment plan.

These amendments support the policy, intent and delivery of the Bill, and I urge Noble Lords to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept them. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 91,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 57, line 25. At end. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. And my Lords, I'm going to speak very briefly. I laid.
20:37
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

very briefly. I laid. Amendment 92 in the same spirit, frankly, of the amendments that I frankly, of the amendments that I laid in an earlier group. That and actually, I would say to the Minister, the part of schedule five, clause three, that that I find most difficult is a subset of the requirements for banks to provide information that the overarching requirement instructs banks to hand over on request to the government, three months of account statements to them to examine.

And the schedule says that the information must only be used to help determine whether or not to make a deduction under this bill. I was trying to ask find from her what kind of assurances there are that, in fact, the use will be that narrow, because I can't see. And it may be that I have misread any form of transparency, that or accountability that will provide that kind of insurance. It all seems to be completely internal to DWP. So my first question to the Minister is to ask how the scheme will verify that the information is not used for other purposes, because detailed account statements undoubtedly have information that could interest all kinds of people.

And will that information, most importantly be destroyed after an investigation is closed? Now, this clause three, as it came from the Commons, and this is the part that exercised me the most, that prohibits banks in its original language from ever notifying the account holder that their information has been handed over to the state. And for what purpose? Now, to the Minister's credit, that now seems to be amended to say that the account holder can be told after three months, I'm unclear if that is an automatic notification notification at the bank's choice, or whether it requires a request from the account holder.

And to me, this matters because I suspect that transparency is the only way to assure that the information in the account is not used for purposes other than those stated in the bill. I am generally exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea that the original version basically required a sort of covert process that in which the information held on an individual by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the state was not disclosed to that individual. Now. The Minister has often suggested the monitoring of accounts is to the monitoring of accounts is to start a dialogue to see if a person has made a mistake in over claiming, rather than committing fraud. And I can't see if somebody isn't. Told that that their information has been that that their information has been taken, read through, examined and dealt with in detail how they can possibly enter into a constructive possibly enter into a constructive discussion to explain what is happening.

I also just wanted to draw the attention of the minister to sort of, again, an underlying to sort of, again, an underlying principle that Jonathan Fisher, that Casey has published, part one of an Casey has published, part one of an independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, which was commissioned by the government. And I want to quote his words on transparency, because it seems that transparency was not built into the original bill and is still now limited. In the revised version that sir and his words are that that I quote a modern disclosure regime must require the prosecution.

He's must require the prosecution. He's talking about the courts, to be honest, concerning the reasonable lines of inquiry that are being lines of inquiry that are being pursued, and how investigative material is being gathered, handled and interrogated. And I would very much like to see those principles embedded in this part of the bill. It's and I think we need assurances from the Minister that if we can't find the language, they will, in practice, be embedded in this part of the bill, because transparency is fundamental.
20:41
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the government, contain a mixture of substantive safeguards and some technical improvements designed to tidy up and clarify the bill. The main Amendment 91 introduces further restrictions and procedural safeguards around the use of the new recovery methods. Created by schedules five and six. It requires that liable persons are properly notified and given an opportunity to settle their liability before enforcement action is taken, and that alternative routes of recovery, such as deductions from earnings or benefits, are considered before more intrusive powers are used.

These are sensible and welcome provisions that strengthen procedural fairness and ensure that the new powers are exercised proportionately. We do, however, note that these changes have come rather late in the passage of the bill. They are substantive clarifications, going to the heart of how these powers will operate. In practice. However, I did listen to the explanations from the noble Baroness on an earlier point I made about this, and I do. I say now understand her position whilst not necessarily agreeing with it.

I'm understanding it. The group also includes two largely technical amendments. The first, to schedule six, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to applications to, or appeals from magistrates courts in England and Wales, ensuring clarity and consistency and procedure. The second, to clause 94, aligns the bill with the Data Protection Act 2018 by confirming that processing has the same meaning as that in the act. A straightforward but important clarification. So it is my view that these amendments strengthen both the fairness and clarity of the Bill, ensuring that it operates in a way that is proportionate, consistent and aligned with existing law, and therefore we do support them.

Turning now to amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my Lords are, as they may not be surprised, we do not support this amendment. It would remove a key part of the machinery that underpins the operation of this bill, specifically, the ability of the Department of Work and Pensions to obtain limited relevant bank information to determine whether a direct reduction order should be made. And I do realise that this chimes with the noble Baroness. Earlier amendment 45 A and I.

So I will not repeat the comments I made then save to say that this is a considerable change, and it would strike at the heart of the framework that enables the recovery of money lost to fraud and error. The government must have the legal capacity to verify whether an individual is eligible for the payments they are receiving, and whether further action is required to prevent overpayment, or a cup of funds that are owed to the state and, by extension, to the taxpayer.

If a person receives money from the state, the state has both the right and the duty to ensure that this money is not being misused, and certainly not ending up in the pockets of fraudsters or criminals. And the Minister has already made clear that individuals in receipt of benefits will be informed that the government may access certain account information for the purposes of investigating suspected, suspected fraud or error. So we are satisfied with the government's assurance that the information obtained under these provisions will be high level and proportionate and strictly limited to what is necessary for the purpose of recovering money lost to fraud and overpayment.

Far from being excessive, the powers set out in this part of the schedule are and a measure tool to protect public funds. So with that, for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons, we do oppose amendment 92. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Viscount for his support on
20:45
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
noble Viscount for his support on these matters. The Liberal, the amendment 92 for the Noble Lady, Baroness Kramer seeks to remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the D to DWP for the purposes of making a direct reduction order from benefit recipients. I am not sure if that was her intention or whether she had intended to remove it from all, but that's the effect I just therefore need for the record to clarify that again, these powers cannot be used for those in receipt of benefit, and amendment 89 and 91 make that even clearer.

They can be used for those debtors not on benefit, or where Pio is not a possible, and those who refuse to engage with DWP in those circumstances. In those cases, my Lords, the ability to request bank statements is a vital safeguard to ensure the amount of deduction is affordable and does not cause hardship. Put simply, if we don't know how much money someone has and they don't engage with DWP, we risk taking more than they can afford to repay for that reason. That is why I can't accept the amendment now.

My Lords, the bill also requires that we can only use that information for legitimate debt recovery purposes. The noble Baroness asked where that was specified in the bill. Schedule five of 310 specifies about further use and power of three. For that it must be for the purposes of a do so. I hope that reassures her on that point. The it's worth actually noticing. But we do have the bill. Bank information will be assessed by a dedicated team and staff will receive specialist training.

This is something banks do already provide bank statements to the Child Maintenance Service. DWP is working with the Money and Pension Service on the right approach to ability to pay checks, using the bank statements to prevent undue financial hardship. These checks will consider the debtors essential living expenses like housing and, as the bill provides, that TDs must not cause a debt, a hardship in meeting those expenses. In most cases, we wouldn't be able to avoid causing hardship without that information. So using bank statements in this way allows the deduction to be affordable and fair based on the individual circumstances.

And the noble. Asked how we can have a dialogue with people if they don't know that they're getting their bank statements. But I suppose the whole point is it's the other way around. We need the bank statements, because these are people with whom were not having a dialogue because they've refused to engage with us. So we have no other way of knowing what's affordable for them other than looking at the information at any point they can get in touch and negotiate, and then we can have that dialogue, but we need them to do it.

And if they won't, this is the only way of making sure those deductions are affordable, she asked. I think about the question about the three month at the three month point, about notifying people about the order are the three month point. The order is lifted. And then then it can be that the person can be told, but it's not automatic. But I would also remind the House, I mean, that the opportunity individuals will have every opportunity if they get in touch, to agree an affordable repayment plan before we use these last resort powers and DWP enforcement teams will make a minimum of four additional attempts to contact them before bank statements are requested.

So this really is a last resort power for those who can't afford even the lowest repayment terms will not be forced into making repayments, although they may be asked to provide evidence if their bank statements indicate repayment is affordable. So, my Lords, I hope that explains the rationale as to why we need bank statements. And we assure the noble lady on the question she's raised, and I encourage her to withdraw the amendment. But I am grateful for the support from the noble Viscount, and I urge the House to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 89, 91, 101 and 102 in my name. I'm also. The question is that amendment 89

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to as many as that been with, say, content in the country with, say, content in the country not content. The contents have it. Amendments 90 and 91 moved formally on block. The question is that amendments 90 and 91 be agreed to on block as many as are that opinion block as many as are that opinion will say content country not content. The contents have it. Amendment 92. Baroness Kramer not moved. The following group has been already debated.

So I asked the already debated. So I asked the noble lady, the Minister, whether she would like to move amendments 93 she would like to move amendments 93 to 102 on block. The question is that amendments 93 to 102 be agreed that amendments 93 to 102 be agreed to on block as many as of that, when you will say content the country not content. The contents have it. We content. The contents have it. We come now to the amendment in the name of Lord Palmer of Charles Hill, name of Lord Palmer of Charles Hill, after clause 96, amendment 103, Lord Palmer of Charles Hill.
20:49
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Palmer of Charles Hill. My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, we on these benches have repeatedly raised concerns

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have repeatedly raised concerns about the punitive measures. Apply. To carers who. Receive Carer's. Allowance and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Subsequently earn small amounts through. Additional work, often losing their Carer's Allowance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

losing their Carer's Allowance entirely. This amendment 103 will would prohibit. The. Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. From using. Recovery methods in cases of overpayment of Carer's Allowance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overpayment of Carer's Allowance. Until an inquiry has concluded. And recommendations from that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And recommendations from that inquiry implemented on Carer's. Allowance overpayment. And we've had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had. Discussions with the Minister's. Department on. This. And we're hopeful that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we're hopeful that the government will commit to a date for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

publication from the despatch box. We were. Promised in conversations, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Promised in conversations, a departmental briefing to me and if necessary. An MP. Of my choice. Just to give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to give. Advance notice of what we would expect. In that briefing is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When does the government expect to publish their response to the report? And it. Is nearly three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Months since the government received. The report. Whilst we. Do acknowledge. There's been a change. Of Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Secretary. Of State and can I ask, is the government still retreat. Still treating. This with a high level of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

priority that it has been so far. And that our meeting also can. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government. Set out a timetable for the publication of the. Report and actions that it will. Take to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take to. Deal with the issues set. Out in that report. And my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, what are the Minister's reflections? If she has reflections. On the report and its.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Findings. And will the government. Meet with carers and. In particular carers. UK. Who I've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who I've. Been in constant. Touch with, who have. Been affected, and then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been affected, and then. Finally and probably the maybe even the nail in the coffin. Is the government considering writing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government considering writing. now? I'm hoping from. Discussions we've had outside.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Discussions we've had outside. This. Chamber that. We could have a. Meeting with the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. these. Matters and have some progress on them, maybe. Not solve them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not solve them. Completely, but feel. That we don't need to test it, that we do. don't need to test it, that we do. Not need to test the feelings of the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 96. Insert the new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. Okay. My Lords, I start by saying that
20:52
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
I'm afraid we must oppose this. Amendment 103 and 113 set out by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Charles Hill, for the same reasons that we set out at the committee stage when it was previously raised. The independent review to which I believe the noble Lord refers, has a clear and limited purpose as set out in the government's own guidance. It is designed to establish three things. Firstly, how overpayments of Carer's Allowance linked to earnings have actually occurred. Secondly, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them? And thirdly, how to reduce the risk of such problems arising in the future.

But nowhere in that remit does it question whether or not the overpayments were made. That point has already settled. The individuals in question have received government funds, taxpayer funds to which they were not entitled. And just to put this in context, my Lords, over £357 million has been overpaid to carers since 2019 for various reasons, such as where claimants breached the earnings limit, claimants ceasing to provide care and where the claimant was also in receipt of an overlapping benefit. Often, I have to say, some innocent reasons.

The review will rightly examine how the system can be improved and how claimants can be better supported, but it will not and cannot rewrite the fact that money was mis allocated and must therefore be returned. So we think it would make no sense to halt all recovery activity pending the outcome of a review that does not address the underlying question of entitlement. The amendment would effectively suspend the recovery of public money that we already know has been wrongly paid out, and we believe this cannot be justified, whether fiscally or morally.

But I do appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is in her place, did set out to us outside the chamber her concerns about a cliff edge. And I do welcome that input and her doing that and saying that. And the government may want to comment on that. But it is also worth remembering that even according to charities, in support of those who have caring responsibilities, overpayments have been made to people who have not correctly reported that their caring responsibilities have ceased, that the person that caring for has died, or that they are in receipt of an overlapping benefit.

The person in question has a duty to report these changes, and it is clearly wrong that the person has not fulfilled their obligation to the taxpayer to report when these events happen. Moreover, by laws, this amendment goes even further by requiring the government not only to await the completion of the review and the laying of its report before Parliament, but also to implement its recommendations in full. And I must emphasise that before a recovery can resume, and we believe this is quite extraordinary.

We have no idea what those recommendations will be, and it would be deeply irresponsible to commit the government in advance to implementing them wholesale, without the ability to assess, to modify or reject them as appropriate, and public funds must be safeguarded, and the government must retain the flexibility to act responsibly in response to the review's findings. And this amendment would tie their hands and delay indefinitely the recovery of money that should never have been paid in the first place. In his summing up, the noble Lord might suggest how long the weight would be, and the noble Baroness might also hazard a guess.

Will it be many months, if not possibly a year or two? We really don't know. But it will be, I'm sure, many months. It then becomes increasingly difficult to recover. The money is where so much time has gone by. Individuals may have experienced substantial changes in their lives, may have gone abroad and at worst the individuals may very sadly have died for whatever reason. And bearing in mind people's circumstances or vulnerabilities, we believe in principle that overpayments and a reminder that this is taxpayers money are just that payments that have been made to individuals in error.

And please note that and should be repaid, but repaid as soon as possible. My Lords, however, let me say that I have an iota of sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Palmer, and that is, were the principle behind the amendment, namely, ensuring fairness and learning lessons from what has gone wrong. But its practical effect would be shortsighted and costly, and contrary to the basic duty of government to protect the public purse or those reasons, and for those reasons, we cannot and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not support it. M'Lord. So I'm grateful to the
20:57
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for explaining his amendments. I'd like to start before we discuss the detail, by paying tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country, this government values carers highly and recognises the vital contribution they make every day. And I would like to assure the noble Lord that my new Secretary of State feels just as strongly about this as the rest of us, and so I can reassure him on that point. But however, the reality is when we came into government, we realised we were faced with a flawed system where too many hardworking carers were left with often large overpayments to be repaid, sometimes worth thousands of pounds.

But I want to say clearly that I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer and others on the whole issue relating to Carer's Allowance. It's precisely because this government takes the issue so seriously that we commissioned an independent review of earnings related overpayments of Carer's Allowance to understand exactly what had gone wrong and to make any necessary improvements. We have received the report from the independent reviewer, and I would like to thank Liz over you, who led the review for her work, but currently finalising our response to the report.

Following careful and detailed consideration of its findings and recommendations. My Lords, I am pleased to confirm today that we will publish both the report produced by Liz Smith's and the government's response to it before the end of this year. My ministerial colleague has written to the chair of the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee to notify her of this. But as this government set up the review, because we are determined to deal with the problems the system has created for carers, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will be reassured by today's commitment once the report and government response are published and he and his colleagues in the other place, if he wishes, have had the opportunity to consider both the ministerial team and DWP will be happy to meet with them to discuss this important issue and the government's next steps in detail.

And I should also remind the Labour Lord and the House that this review is not all the government has done to put things right for carers. We have been reviewing our communications to make it as easy as possible for carers to tell DWP when there has been a change in their circumstances, which may affect their Carer's Allowance payment. We've been improving guidance and processes for our staff on the treatment of earnings and putting in extra resources to process the earnings information we receive from HMRC.

We have also, I think the noble Lord younger mentioned the cliff edge which the Baroness, Baroness Cramer, don't. Interesting. We have begun scoping work on introducing an earnings tapering Carer's Allowance in the long run, but I would say this is something that was mentioned by the Chancellor at the budget and it is it is not straightforward, but a clipper, a taper might be a way to further incentivise unpaid carers to do some work and could reduce the risk of significant overpayments. But I should say introducing a taper in Carer's Allowance is not without its challenges and could complicate the benefit, of course, as it currently stands and could mean a significant rebuild of the system.

So DWP has begun some scoping work to see whether an earnings taper might be an option in the longer term, but I have to say any taper of introduced will be several years away. I don't want to underplay the significance of trying to make changes like that, as we've also introduced the largest increase in the earnings limit since Carer's Allowance was introduced in 1976. That limit is now 16 hours work at National Living wage levels, and over 60,000 additional people will be able to receive Carer's Allowance between 2000 and 2526 and 20 2930.

So I hope the noble Lord recognises this progress too. In terms of the questions he'd asked, he asked would we meet with carers UK? I can assure, reassure him, that ministers and officials meet regularly with carers UK and other organisations who represent unpaid carers, as well as unpaid carers themselves. There have been meeting specifically on earnings related overpayments in the past, and we expect further payments in future. The noble Lord asked me would oh yes, but for reflections on the report, I mean the Lords, I should say, I mean the report.

The review has produced a very lengthy and detailed report with many individual recommendations. We have been looking very carefully at it. And he also, noble Lord, also asked, would we'd be writing off overpayments? I hope you'll appreciate that. I can't I can't say ahead of the publication of the report and the government's response, what the government intends to do, I can simply reassure him that we have looked very carefully at the recommendations and may be responding in detail before the end of the year.

Well, before I close, there's a couple of important points I need to make about amendments 103 and 113 since they have been moved. Firstly, when considering 103, I must remind the House again. The debt recovery powers in this bill are powers of last resort to be used only with benefit, with debtors who are not on benefits or in relevant pay employment. And to be clear, for the record, the dwp's recovery powers in this bill cannot be used on people claiming Carer's Allowance. They ought to be used only on those who receive income via other means and who can afford to repay but refuse to do so.

This amendment would put that category of person, those who can afford to pay in a better position than those who are currently in pay on Carer's Allowance or other benefits. That is because we could use our existing powers to deduct overpayments from wages and benefits, but not use the new payments to recover from those who are outside those groups. I don't think that's a desirable situation, and I'm sure that's not what the Labour Lord, Lord Palmer intended. Secondly, as the noble Viscount observed, amendment 113 would halt the whole bill's implementation, including parts unrelated to Carer's Allowance.

Until every recommendation of the independent report is implemented. Now, I know the noble Lord is as keen as I am to improve the position of carers in the UK, but this amendment would obviously be disproportionate. It would put at risk the entirety of the £1.5 billion in benefits that this bill is estimated by the OBR to realise by 20 2930. So, my Lords, delaying this act would not be responsible for the strain on the public finances and be unfair to taxpayers.

And finally, I think it's just worth noting that some measures in the bill, of course, are crucial for preventing the kind of issues seen with Carer's Allowance. But in other benefits, as other noble Lord knows, we're not proposing to use the eligibility verification measure with Carer's Allowance. Clearly not, but it will improve DWP access to critical data, helping to verify entitlements, identify errors on overpayments and preventing build up of debt in three other benefits Universal Credit, ESA and Pension Credit. Delaying the bill would delay the opportunity to stop others building up overpayments and debts.

As I've outlined many times, there are robust safeguards to ensure the proportionate and effective use of these powers, including independent oversight, new rights of review and appeal, and clear limits on scope. And my Lords, I hope, having given the assurances, I think the noble Lord was seeking, but that he will he will feel now able to withdraw his amendments.
21:03
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, thank you to the Minister for all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That she has said and what where. We where I'm. Looking and we're looking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that we can have a departmental. Meeting in order to go through these things, not in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through these things, not in the public eye to. Try and. Deal with the problems. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deal with the problems. And I take some issue with what the noble Viscount said about carers. They are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Viscount said about carers. They are should. Be received. I accept that. The trouble. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Once you've received it and bought your loaf of. Bread or whatever it is, there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bread or whatever it is, there isn't any money around and a lot of those people are. In straitened circumstances. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Think we've got to. Understand that. Not everybody. Is good at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not everybody. Is good at managing their finances when there's very little of it. And I. Think if we can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look at that in a caring way. With, you know, punishing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those that have. Belatedly taken. also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also. While building up the comments I've made and if the noble idea of the minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the minister. Is agreed that. We can have such a meeting with,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with, with me and one of my. Members of Parliament. Just to try and make. It. So that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. So that. We're all singing. From the same page. In those circumstances, I'm prepared to not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances, I'm prepared to not move my amendment. Is it your Lordship's special? This amendment. May withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments. Government amendments Amendments. Government amendments 108 two. No. So 104 one 108. Move. Formally, the question is that Formally, the question is that amendments 141 108 be agreed to on block, as many of them, depending on the, say, content. Contrary not the, say, content. Contrary not content, the contents have it. We now come to ten amendment 109 after clause 97, Lord Vader.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 97, Lord Vader. This amendment follows on from a previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister at
21:05
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
noble Baroness, Lady Lister at committee. It also has support from the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester and Baroness Finn. I am very grateful to both of them that since committee Baroness Lister and I have engaged with the Minister, who has been very helpful and constructive. I would also like to thank the Public Law Project for their assistance, not least in navigating a very complex area of law. In public policy, the amendment seeks to ensure that recovery of overpayments by deductions from Universal Credit payments, which is DWP preferred method for recovering overpayments from people still in receipt of Universal Credit, is fair and affordable.

It seeks to achieve this objective by adding a new subsection to section 71 B of the Social Security Administration Act, 1992. The new subsection would have two effects. First, it would require DWP to consult with claimants before deductions are applied and to ensure that the rate of recovery is affordable to that individual. The version of this amendment we debated in committee would have essentially written off official error over payments. The version we have brought at report is wider in scope, and that it applies to all other payments.

So not not just those due to official error, but it is also less ambitious in that it does not require any write off of overpayments. The second effect of the amendment is that the it would limit the powers of recovery to overpayments that are less than six years old, in line with the limitation period that applies to recovery of. Debts through the courts. At committee, the minister stated that the department's preference was, and I quote, always, to agree on affordable and sustainable repayment plans.

This is not currently the approach that is applied to the recovery of overpayments from individuals still in receipt of benefits. Instead, in these circumstances, the DWP has the power to deduct 15% of an individual's monthly Universal Credit payments directly with limited notice and without the individual's consent. For a single adult aged 25 and over, this amounts to a sudden, unanticipated loss of £60 a month. The current approach to recovery of overpayments stands in stark contrast to the requirements that apply to commercial lenders, such as banks and utilities companies, which are required by regulation to engage with customers extensively if they owe them money.

The current approach also contrasts with the provision of new powers to recover deductions from bank accounts of individuals no longer in receipt of benefits, and who are not engaging with the system. In these cases, the legislation would provide for an opportunity to make representations on affordability and hardship before the deductions begin. By requiring the Secretary of State to give notice and invite affected persons to make representations on affordability, the amendment seeks to ensure that equivalent protections are put in place for the recovery mechanism that applies to those who continue to be in receipt of benefits.

As far as the limitation period is concerned, the new subsection would require that a recovery must commence before the expiration of a six year period from the date on which the recoverable amount was paid. Currently, no such restriction applies, which means that individuals can face recovery action for overpayments that are many years old. And of course, in those cases, people will have often not be able to locate records. I understand that the government is sympathetic towards the objectives of our amendment, but it still has concerns.

We have addressed at least one of those concerns in the version of the amendment which has been tabled, that concern related to the way in which we had formulated the subsection on limitation. But I understand the government has wider concern. And the noble Baroness, the minister, explained in particular that in a complex system like welfare, there is a risk of unintended consequences. Once any new statutory provision is put into operational effect. I know that she speaks from depths of experience, and also from a sincere commitment to make the system fair and efficient, and so I hope that in her reply, if she's not inclined to support this amendment in its current terms, given that we have agreement on first principles, I hope that she might consider a third reading amendment that reflects the government's concerns.

Although I have to echo the noble Lord, Lord Vox's concern earlier about the very limited time we have before third reading, if the government is not inclined to bring back a third reading amendment, can the Minister reassure us in two critical respects? First, that the government agrees with the objective of giving a giving people in receipt of benefit a fair chance to discuss an affordable repayment plan rather than applying the automatic deduction of 15%. And secondly, can the noble Baroness, the minister, outline concrete ways as alternatives to the statutory provision that we have proposed in which this objective might be achieved? One solution might be, for example, the setting up of a task and finish group within the governance structure of the current review of Universal Credit to work through the technicalities.

Again, I'm very thankful to the Minister for her exemplary engagement with us on this amendment. And with this, I'd back to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First after clause 97, insert the following new clause as printed in the partial list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the partial list. My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord bird, for tabling this amendment. Following up, as he said on the one I tabled in committee, in which he spoke so eloquently. And I too would like to thank my noble friend, the Minister and her officials for the very
21:12
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
and her officials for the very useful meeting we had recently, and also the Public Law Project, for all their help, which is needed through the Universal Credit System, the government determines the minimum amount that people, people and families need to live on, as has been evidenced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. For many, that amount is not sufficient to meet their essential needs, as acknowledged by the Dwp's own policies and introduction that takes people below that amount will result in hardship.

A survey by Public Law Project of 500 people who had deductions applied found that a third of respondents became destitute. As a result, 97% of Citizens Advice Advisors reported that overpayments or advanced loan deductions negatively affect people's ability to afford essentials, while analysis by policy and practice families, in addition to lowering income deductions, increased income volatility, making it harder to speak to low income households to budget and plan ahead with far reaching consequences, particularly for housing affordability and the risk of homelessness.

The need to address the impact of deductions on poverty and financial instability was recognised by governments at last year's Autumn budget, when they introduced a fair repayment rate. Thank you so much. Thank you. This move, which reduced the maximum amount that can be taken from someone's Universal Credit payment to repay debt from 25% to 15% was very welcome, but is not enough to address the issues associated with overpayment recovery. The rate of 15% is the rate that already applied for recovery of overpayments, which individuals when where individuals do not have earned income.

Further, one is helpful to have a maximum cap. It's not a substitute to assessing what constitutes an affordable rate of repayment for individuals. A recent report from Money and Mental Health, while welcoming the fair repayment rate, expressed concern that the 15% would continue to drive hardship. Its research found the current system for overpayment recovery, quote, disproportionately affects people with severe mental health conditions who are eight times more likely to have been overpaid. Benefits. The result is, they say, serious financial and psychological harm for many people already struggling with money and mental health problems.

One research respondent commented on the deduction that some days I had been not. I have not been eating because I can't afford to, which is leaving my mental health in tatters. Similarly, Policy and Practices report concluded that while the fair repayment rate was a step forward, it was not enough, with their analysis sharing that without urgent reform, deductions would keep pushing families deeper into poverty. Both of these reports recommend that before deductions commence, affordability assessments should be conducted to assess how much people can afford to pay instead of automatically taking 15% from payments.

A recommendation this amendment would meet. So I hope my noble friend, the Minister, can give us some some assurances along the line suggested by the noble Lord, which would mean that he did not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Am very. Pleased to have added my. Name to this. Amendment, and as this the first
21:16
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment, and as this the first time that I've spoken at this stage, I want to thank the ministers for their careful consideration of the their careful consideration of the concerns raised by noble Lords, as well as thanking all those who have engaged with such diligence with this matter. And for the record, I also want to say that this is an important bill. Attempts to commit fraud will not stop as a result of this bill. That will never be possible, but it will be far harder for those making these attempts.

And that's absolutely right. As is the ability to recover overpayments. But the principles behind this amendment are fairness in the face of the various reasons for an overpayment being made, including error by the department and the principle of affordability, ensuring that those already in poverty are not pushed further into poverty. My Lords, let's remember who will bear the brunt of these new powers, people who are reliant on benefits which independent research suggests are already insufficient to meet people's basic needs.

But the requirement to pay off their debts via universal credit reductions of up to 15% of the standard allowance, there is a real risk that many will, I fear, be pushed into even deeper poverty, and it is not a trivial number of people who will be affected. According to a DWP Freedom of Information Act response in 20 2324, nearly 900,000 new overpayment debts were entered on Dwp's debt manager system, nearly 80% of which were recorded as caused by official error.

The amendment before us offers a constructive path to stop people being pushed into even more precarious circumstances by introducing a clear limit on how far back overpayment recovery can go. It brings predictability and restraint into the process. People should not live in fear that an administrative slip up made a decade ago will suddenly resurface as a bill they cannot hope to pay. Other areas of law recognise the principle of limitation periods. So should we hear equally by requiring an affordability assessment? The amendment ensures that any repayment plans are fair, sustainable and consistent with human dignity.

This is for the good of the individuals, but also for governments, for if the state appears heavy handed, then confidence in the integrity of our welfare system, which is the thrust of this whole bill, is undermined. My Lords, this amendment does not weaken the fight against fraud. It does not excuse dishonesty or diminish accountability. What it does is seek to uphold the government's stated objective of ensuring that recovery of overpayments is done in a fair and affordable way.

So I urge the noble lady of the Minister to make to take these concerns into accounts and in particular, Lord Vermes suggestions for how these concerns can be addressed practically. I, like others, will not be pushing for a division on this matter, but I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. My Lords, I want to speak in
21:20
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to speak in strong support of this amendment so ably tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Durham, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister and the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, and to which I am very pleased. Sorry to have added my own name. This amendment speaks across so many of the principles that have underpinned our debates, and the position that we on these benches have adopted throughout both committee and report. Fairness, proportionality, transparency and responsibility.

And this amendment is about finding this balance, ensuring that the recovery of overpaid public funds is carried out in a way that is both effective and humane. We have been clear from the outset that we support the core objectives of this bill. Public money has been wrongly paid out, whether through error or fraud. Public money that has been wrongly paid out, whether through error or fraud, must be recovered. That is a duty we owe to the taxpayer and to the integrity of our public finances.

But it is equally a duty of government to ensure that such recovery is done in a way that is fair, measured and responsible, and that does not impose unnecessary hardship, that recognises the realities of individual circumstances and that upholds confidence in the system itself. And this amendment embodies precisely that balance. It establishes clearer, necessary safeguards before deductions are made for a person's benefits. It requires that the liable person be notified of the rate and the basis of deduction, and, crucially, that they be given the opportunity to make representations about affordability.

It insists that deductions should proceed only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that recovery will not cause hardship in meeting essential living expenses, and that the process is fair in all the circumstances, including where the type of payment may have arisen through official delay or error, and sensibly, it sets a six year limit for recovery, in line with the limitation period that applies through the courts. In other words, this amendment ensures that the state exercises its right to recover the money in a way that is just proportionate and accountable, and aligns the recovery of overpayments through benefit deductions with the very same principles of fairness and restraint that we have already built into schedule five.

This bill, in relation to deductions from bank accounts. So throughout our scrutiny of this legislation, we have repeatedly emphasised the good governance is not simply about having the power to act. It is about exercising that power responsibly. This amendment reflects that philosophy perfectly. It strikes the right equilibrium between fiscal responsibility and social justice, between protecting the taxpayer and protecting those who may be already in vulnerable situations. So I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord, for Durham, for bringing forward this thoughtful and well crafted proposal.

It strengthens the bill. It would give legislative effect to the principles of transparency, fairness and proportionality. And it ensures that in pursuing the legitimate goal of recovering public funds, we do so in a manner that remains worthy of the public trust. My Lords, this is a measured, sensible and responsible amendment, and we are very pleased to support it. And I hope that Baroness, the Minister, will give the assurances

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that travel that would be would be welcome. At my Lords, in responding to this amendment. I would like to
21:23
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
this amendment. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vader Army, and my noble friend Baroness Lister, for their early and constructive engagement on this topic. I understand the intent of amendment 109 is to replicate some of the safeguards introduced in schedule five for direct reduction orders to the recovery of Universal Credit and new style overpayments by deduction from benefit. And my Lords, although I do understand clearly what the movers want to do, I am not able to accept the amendment, but I do hope I can provide some assurances along the way.

To begin with, DWP are committed to improving payment accuracy to prevent overpayments occurring through continuous improvement activity. But when overpayments do arise, the Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and ensure that wherever possible, money owed to DWP is repaid. But within that objective, we are clear that our aim is to secure affordable and sustainable repayment plans and to ensure safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable debtors. As noble, the noble Lord, Lord Vader, May said.

Amendment 109 applies not just to official error, but to all Universal Credit and New Star benefit overpayments recovered from benefits, including debts arising from fraud. DWP already sets out that fraud overpayments are subject to stricter recovery rules due to their nature and seriousness, and to treat all debts the same would not be right. It would be unfair on those who obtained a DWP benefit in good faith. This amendment also only applies to debts being recovered by deductions from benefits. A key driver for the new debt recovery measures is to bring greater fairness to debt recovery, giving DWP the tools to recover debts from those debtors who are not on benefits and who have the means to repay, but choose not to.

The amendment could undermine that important objective, but let me take each part of the amendment in turn. New subsection eight A one would require require DWP to give an individual notice on the basis of the deduction amounts, but as individuals do receive a notification about the overpayment, setting out the deduction rate and basis for this would present significant challenges. Benefit awards can fluctuate month to month, and deductions for repayment of debt are calculated accordingly. The deduction rate will also depend on other deductions being taken, so a legal requirement to issue a fixed notice setting out a single rate of recovery may risk being inaccurate, confusing, or even misleading.

However, I think noble Lords are making an important point and while I can't accept the amendment, I will commit to the House that in response, I will explore how we might notify individuals more clearly about forthcoming deductions within the existing legal framework. I intend to do this as part of the commitments I have made to review our communications to those with debts. New subsection eight A2 seeks to replicate the representation stage for direct reduction orders, where recovery takes place by deduction from benefits.

These processes are intentionally different. And let me explain why. When deductions are made from benefits, DWP already holds accurate information about benefit payments, existing deductions and in some cases, income from other sources. Crucially, there is also no ambiguity about ownership of the funds. Notifications already make clear that at any time, the individual can contact DWP to discuss the affordability of the deduction. By contrast, for the Doe process, DWP may know little or nothing about a person's financial circumstances because they're not on benefits or in payee and they refuse to engage with us.

That is why the bill makes provision for DWP to obtain bank statements as an important safeguard. However, we recognise this may not give DWP as complete a picture as we have for benefit claimants. It's therefore right that individuals and any joint account holders can make representations about information that may not be apparent from statements alone before deduction is taken from a bank account. Nevertheless, in line with my previous commitment, I will commit to look at what more we can do to make our communications as clear as possible on how claimants can contact the department at any time to discuss repayment.

I will also look at the timing of these communications. Turning to new subsection eight b, I agree that deductions from benefits should not cause unintended hardship and should be fair. This government is committed to the principle of debt repayment being affordable. That is why the processes do exist to achieve this. Protections are in place to prevent excessive deductions. Regulations set out the maximum rates of recovery from benefits for fraud and non fraud debts, and for those in receipt of Universal Credit.

As my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, the fair repayment rate policy, which this government introduced on the 30th of April, reduced the total amount that can be deducted from Universal Credit from 25% to 15% of the standard allowance in most cases. And I'm grateful to her for acknowledging that. Crucially, there is also a priority order for deductions taken from Universal Credit to ensure that debts such as housing arrears are taken first to prevent people facing eviction and thus causing hardship. Recovery of overpayments is a long way down the list of priority order, but moreover, there are robust processes in place to support the vulnerable.

Those struggling with debts, such as referrals to the Money Advice Network for free, independent and impartial money and debt advice. And I must again stress, individuals can and should contact DWP at any time to discuss repayment terms. Where individuals make contact. DWP can reduce or temporarily suspend recovery depending on the circumstances. In exceptional cases, DWP can consider waiving recovery of the debt entirely. I turn now to the question of fairness in this amendment. The extension of whether the active recovery itself is fair differs from the provision in schedule five, which is limited to consideration of the deduction being fair in the circumstances known to DWP.

Every overpayment decision has existing mandatory reconsideration and appeal rights, and these are the right routes to challenge whether the overpayment should be recovered. Although amendment 109 is specific to recovery by deduction from benefits, it risks generating uncertainty as to whether it was fair to recover by other methods too, such as by deductions from earnings or voluntary repayment plans. Finally, part C of amendment 109 would limit the commencement of recovery of any overpayment of UC on UCR. Benefits from deductions of benefits to six years.

The existing framework under managing public money provides enough flexibility to forgo recovery of historic debt where appropriate, imposing a statutory time limit on commencing recovery would have consequences that may not be intended. For example, DWP could be prevented from recovering money obtained through benefit fraud, where we could not reasonably identify the fraud until six years after the payment was made, and it's important to distinguish DWP recoveries from those by other creditors through court orders for which a limitation period might otherwise imply.

As the noble Lord, Lord Vader Army indicated, DWP recovers benefit overpayment debts one at a time, beginning with the oldest. Due to the protections I outlined earlier, we recover by deduction from benefit at a much lower rate than other creditors typically would, and we rightly prioritise deduction for certain debts like housing or utilities arrears, over benefit payments to prevent hardship. That means recovery of a UC on UCR benefit overpayment could rightly take place some time after the initial overpayment has been notified to the individual.

A blanket limitation could risk undermining the integrity of that process. It could create hardship for individuals, as well as significantly reduce the amount of taxpayer's money returned to the public purse. But my Lord, I hope, I think just a couple of other points that were raised. Just a comment from the noble for the Right Reverend credit, the Bishop of Leicester. I hear this point which are very clearly made. Just for one piece of clarification. I may have misheard him, but I think he referred to these new powers again, the new powers on recovery, I want to be clear, are not aimed at those on benefits.

But this is a broader power aboard a debate which is very useful to have in this space. And I very much value his contribution to that. I mean, I think finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord bird around me, I'm not able to say that we can come back to this on third reading. It is the government's view that we think this is best handled, given the significant legislative complexity. We think this is best handled for operational improvements rather than legislating, as we need flexibility, and it could create all kinds of unintended consequences given the complexity of benefit calculations.

But I do hope that the, the commissions I've given the noble Lord have enough. And I would encourage him to withdraw his amendment amendments.
21:32
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I thank all those who have spoken, and I'm not going to press this to a vote. So the whips don't need to worry. But there are a few points that I would like to make. The first point is, is, is in regard to the complexity of setting out to claimants the deduction rate. I here with the minister says. But it doesn't entirely reassure me because I think as a matter of basic fairness, however complex certain calculations are, the government should just like commercial enterprises, be able to set it out in a simpler way as possible to the beneficiaries, to the claimants.

The second point is that the way we crafted the amendment, that Roman letter to the comprehensive provision on fairness was precisely designed to distinguish fraud cases from other fraud cases. But as the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester said, the vast majority of these debts are actually due to of debts are actually due to official error. So that's mainly what we're dealing with. And of course, it would have been possible to exclude recovery of debts. Of overpayments due to fraud from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scope of this amendment on the limitation periods. I, I think important. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In. Any legal system because they're both about fairness and about both about fairness and about efficiency. With the mountain of overpayments that various reports have pointed to, a system that doesn't have a cut of time will continue to repeat the same mistakes, I think. So it is really about efficiency as much as it is about fairness. But with that in about fairness. But with that in mind, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for the reassurances that she has given.

I think they go to two critical elements, which are clarity of the elements, which are clarity of the communication with the affected individuals and timeliness. And I hope that she will really pursue as hope that she will really pursue as much as she can within the policy. There's two objectives, because it is absolutely necessary that people is absolutely necessary that people are told about these deductions before the deductions actually begin. So they have to be told clearly what the deductions are going to be, and they have to be told as soon as possible and ideally quite a bit before all the deductions begin.

But with those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deductions begin. But with those assurances in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is my leave withdrawn after clause 99, amendment 110. Viscount Kanga of Lecce.
21:35
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I realise that we're approaching the end of the report stage of this bill, and the hour is late. But I did want to spend a little time speaking to my amendment. One 110 those who were present at Grand Committee will recall the examples I cited of individuals producing and disseminating videos designed to help people cheat the checks put in place by the DWP to ensure that welfare support goes only to those with genuine entitlement. These were not isolated incidents.

We're talking about content with titles such as and I quote, unlock the secret steps for winning your Pip claims step by step guide, unquote. Posted on channels with names like Mike Bolton Benefits Training. This is what has come to be known as the phenomenon of the sixth floor, sir, and it represents a serious and growing threat to the integrity of the welfare system, a threat which I regret to say the government is, we believe, struggling to keep pace with. For those to whom this term is unfamiliar, let me briefly explain.

SIP Fluence says our individuals who use Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and other social media platforms to publish detailed guides on how eligibility checks for welfare benefits can be manipulated or bypassed. They provide readymade scripts to their viewers, instructing them on how to answer questions, what to disclose, how to pretend to have a disability or injury, and when to tell the truth and when they should lie. In short, they are professionals in coaching claimants to circumvent established eligibility safeguards, and the testimony is published on their websites and channels make clear that many successful claimants attribute their outcomes directly to the advice of these so-called sequences, and this is not simply a nuisance on the fringes of the system, my Lords, it is an organised, deliberate effort to undermine the very principles of fairness and integrity on which the welfare system depends.

In the time since I last spoke on this issue, which was a committee, thousands upon thousands more people have viewed this content. Hundreds more will have used it in their eligibility interviews. Possibly dozens will have been successful in their claim precisely because of these videos and not because of a genuine entitlement. Now, my Lords, I want to be clear that I understand that noble Lords on these benches understand, and that the Conservative Party makes a point of understanding that there are people in our country who should receive support from the state.

There are people who cannot live without the support provided to them through the welfare system. And it is absolutely right that we help those people. But what can never be right is the abuse of this system of support by people who do not have a genuine eligibility, but who are coached to cheat the system and steal from the limited resources, which should rightly be going to those who need it most. Then, my Lords, if we have confidence in the system of testing as it currently stands, then we should also be confident that it and the assessors themselves have the ability and the capacity to determine who is in need of support, and then those people who are not.

This is the context in which we bring forward this amendment, which is designed to deal with this growing problem directly and proportionately. The amendment has been carefully drafted to ensure that we target those who are encouraging, facilitating and enabling fraud, an objective which I know noble Lords across the House I am sure will support. Clause one makes it absolutely clear that the offence only applies where a person intentionally publishes or communicates information that is reasonably likely to be used to mislead or deceive public authorities in order to secure welfare to which they are not entitled.

And my Lords, this goes right to the heart of the problem. I have described the deliberate creation and dissemination coaching materials designed to cheat the system. Clause two adds the essential safeguard that culpability arises only where the individual knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the content is intended to facilitate dishonest conduct under existing legislation such as the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and this ensures that we're not targeting ordinary members or the public, but only those who are actively propagating content and content to enable fraud.

Clause three then builds in crucial protections for legitimate activity. Journalists, academics and others who are acting in the public interest or who take reasonable steps to prevent their information being misused, have statutory defence, and that means that this amendment does not criminalise responsible commentary or research. It criminalises those who deliberately and knowingly produce guides to cheating welfare assessments. Clause four sets out proportionate penalties up to 12 months on summary conviction and up to five years on an indictment.

These sanctions are in line with other serious fraud related offences, reflecting the harm done when organised online. Actors undermine the integrity of the welfare system. And finally, my Lords, clause five makes clear that this applies across the spectrum of modern media. Written audio, video and digital content, including social media platforms. And this allows the provision to keep pace with the reality of how this fraudulent material is produced and shared, and therefore safeguards its operational effectiveness into the future. Therefore, we believe, my Lords, this amendment is tightly crafted, carefully targeted and proportionately safeguarded, and it ensures that those who maliciously spread instructions on how to cheat the welfare system can be prosecuted.

And in short, it criminalises not the sharing of information, but the facilitation of fraud. Fraud today is not static. It evolves, it adapts, and it exploits new platforms with increasing sophistication. If this bill is to succeed, it must be capable not only of addressing fraud as we see it today, but of anticipating and countering the methods of tomorrow. So this amendment ensures that we do precisely that, tackling a wider breadth of fraudulent activity, both in the temporal sense and on the and in the online sphere.

And so we believe it's an essential provision to make this legislation truly effective and enduring. Now, there's a good reason for bringing this up again, a report because and the noble Baroness knows this, we seek a much greater effort in action from the government to take down these abhorrent websites. We seek a series of proactive steps with a timetable to neutralise these individuals involved who are no less than fraudsters. What is the government doing about sick finances? If the noble Baroness, the minister in her reply states it's not for this bill, then where and also when? I'm also concerned that the government is not doing the proper groundwork required to tackle this threat, which and which is also to understand the scale of the threat as well.

So is the noble Baroness the Minister aware of work underway in the Department to understand the relationship between sequences and the rate of those claiming benefits, such as Pip. And what is the causal relation? The Department understands the risk between these two matters. In other words, how is the government assessing the scale of the threat with a view to crafting a response to match it? Academics at Oxford University, at Bournemouth University and journalists from an ever increasing range of publications are highlighting this and have done so since I raised this issue at committee.

And we're not alone in imploring the government to take action on this front. So just to conclude, I will be listening carefully to the response from the new Baroness with interest. Because what I'm not expecting is for her to say that she repeats that the current legislation is sufficient, and I think she knows from discussions outside the chamber that really what I'm looking for is some real meat behind her remarks to show that the government are really taking this seriously as as an appropriate operation.

I beg to differ.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Proposed act, clause 99. Insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed in the partial list. Malones I share the interest of the noble Viscount, Viscount
21:43
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
the noble Viscount, Viscount Younger, in the important issue of fraudulent activity in the digital age, especially when it affects our social security system. I want to start by recognising the online activity in this space is wide ranging. There are people who offer advice on social media or elsewhere online because they genuinely want to help others. Often disabled people to understand the benefits system better so they can access the support they need. That is understandable and perfectly legal. However, there are others who deliberately use online platforms to encourage or facilitate benefit fraud by sharing information or organising fraud themselves.

This kind of behaviour is calculated, harmful and must be taken seriously. But my Lords, we do not need new legislation to deal with it. Those individuals can and should face consequences under existing law. Section seven of the Fraud Act 2006 and section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 already make it a criminal offence to assist or promote fraud. This amendment does not strengthen this existing legislation. In fact, as I pointed out at committee, this amendment will be softer than existing offences.

It would reduce the maximum sentence for the proposed offence to just five years, compared to the ten years already available under existing legislation. That is a weaker deterrent. Moreover, introducing a new offence risks duplicating the powers the government already has. This creates unnecessary overlap and indeed a more confusing legal landscape, and could create a disparity in how cases are prosecuted and sentenced. There is no need to complicate the legal framework when legislation is already in place. However, where there is online activity which provides information on how to commit fraud and where this activity can be reasonably countered, we think we have the right tools and networks in place.

Beyond the legislation I have already outlined. First, the department actively collaborates with a range of government partners, including Action Fraud, the City of London Police and the National Cyber Security Centre to identify malicious sites that impersonate the department, enable fraudulent activity or target DWP customers. For example, recently, in partnership with Action Fraud, we have been raising awareness of Winter fuel payment scams across Facebook and formerly known as Twitter. This has taken place alongside Dwp's continued work with trusted partners and charities such as Independent Age to ensure accurate and timely information is available.

DWP has also developed a recorded message for our telephone lines, and issued a press release via Gov.uk to raise awareness of such scams. Second, social media companies also have clear responsibilities under the Online Safety Act. They are required to remove harmful and illegal content, including anything that encourages or helps others to commit offences. This act now enables us to work with Ofcom through their new trusted flagger process. This builds on established relationships and escalation routes we have with individual companies to report suspicious content on certain platforms quickly and effectively.

Third, we are taking steps to improve our communication with claimants to reduce the reliance on informal networks or potentially unreliable sources of information. In January of next year, we be launching a national campaign on fraud and error. This multi-channel campaign will inform and remind claimants of their responsibilities to report changes, and will do so in a way that will try to overcome some of the barriers we know individuals face when doing so. And more widely, my Lords Dwp's Economic Series and Organised Crime Team currently have several criminal investigations underway into professional enablers, where individuals provide professional services that enable criminality and are usually part of an organised crime group.

While the details are sensitive due to the nature of these investigations and the stage thereat, these include accountants providing false employment details to facilitate universal credit fraud, and doctors providing false medical information to support disability benefit fraud byelaws. For these reasons, and as I've outlined, the opposition's approach to approach is not the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right one and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Well, I do thank the noble
21:47
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I do thank the noble Baroness for her remarks, and I said that one of my main aims in speaking that one of my main aims in speaking again to this is that I wanted to draw out the actions from the government in terms of what they are doing to address this, what I call the scourge of sequencers. First of all, she states that the existing legislation does cover the offences, but I should just point out to the House that the offences are still occurring and are growing.

However, I think I've succeeded to some extent and I have managed to elicit more information than I did at committee from the noble Baroness, which is now on the record in terms of what the government is, is undertaking across cross governmentally here. So although I'm not entirely satisfied, I think I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

succeeded to some extent. But in the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment 111. Baroness Government amendment 111. Baroness will formally. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to, as many about opinion will say content about opinion will say content contrary, not content, the contents of it. Amendment 112. Baroness Finn of it. Amendment 112. Baroness Finn not moved. Amendment 113 Lord Palmer not moved.

We now come to the Last Amendment, amendment 114. In clause 106. Baroness Sherlock.
21:48
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

106. Baroness Sherlock. My lord, I beg to move. Government amendment 114. This amendment ensures flexibility in the commencement of certain provisions commencement of certain provisions of the bill across the different nations of the United Kingdom. This approach is well established in legislation such as the Care Act 2014, Digital Economy Act 2017, of the Public Order Act 2023. It ensures that implementation is both practical and responsive to the specific circumstances in each jurisdiction. For example, the courts in one part of the UK may be ready to hear certain applications, while in another staff training and procedural updates may still be underway.

This amendment allows the flexibility to commence later in one area without unnecessarily delaying implementation in an area which is ready. Crucially, the amendment does not alter the substantive provisions contained in the bill, nor does it affect how or to whom they apply. It is simply a matter of good governance, ensuring the legislation is brought into force in a way that is orderly, effective and sensitive to operational realities. I hope the House will support this amendment as a sensible, unnecessary step in delivering the Bill effectively across the UK.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 106,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 6 to 7, line 21 and insert or different areas. In my Lords. I'll keep my remarks
21:49
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my Lords. I'll keep my remarks pretty brief. I rise to speak to him and 14 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. And this is, as the noble Baroness has indicated, a technical amendment, but one that raises a point of some practical importance in terms of how this legislation will be implemented. The amendment would allow commencement regulations to provide for provisions of the bill to come into force on different days in relation to different areas. We recognise that this is a standard enabling power and we do not object to it in principle.

However, while we appreciate that this is likely a technical and administrative provision, we would welcome a little more clarity from the Minister as to the intended purpose. In particular, can the Minister explain whether the government currently anticipate that the act will, in practice, come into force in a staggered way across different parts of the UK? It would be helpful to know whether any particular regional or administrative reasons have led to this amendment being proposed, for example, to accommodate devolved competences or pilot schemes or differences in data infrastructure between public authorities, or whether this is simply a precautionary measure to preserve flexibility.

We would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the governments expect any significant differences in timing or rollout between areas once the bill is enacted. If such differences are anticipated, what criteria will determine the order of commencement, and how will Parliament and the public be kept informed of that process? So my Lords, were content to support this amendment as a sensible technical adjustment. We would appreciate some reassurances that it will not result in confusions or inconsistencies. And finally, my Lords, as we come to the end of the report, I just want on a lighter note to take this opportunity to thank all the Lords for their engagement throughout these proceedings, and to all those who have voted in the amendments upon which we have divided.

And I look forward to seeing the Lords again, some Labour Lords again, I should say, at third Reading on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thursday. I thank Labour Viscount for his
21:51
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Labour Viscount for his questions. Firstly, to say that we have I mean, we have no reason to believe that any area or believe that any area or jurisdiction won't be ready. These, this, these are simply as a precautionary measure. It is simply about providing flexibility in case unexpected issues arise down the line. It's a standard legislative approach that provides flexibility to adapt if needed. It is of always holding back implementation in areas that are ready. Should it should should there be another area that needed more time and that we're not excessively not we're really just there were no specific powers have been earmarked or delayed.

The amendments are enabling and where readiness exist, powers will be commenced without delay in terms of how people will know. Parliament and the public, of course, will see the commencement regulations. And so that will make that clear. Some of this is simply to ensure flexibility in the commencement provisions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the different nations of the UK. And I commend it to the House. I beg to move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have. My Lords, I beg to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to leave the House to now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page