Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I do not accept that announcing yet another consultation is a serious response to a problem of this scale. A review at this stage, as she said, is just the cynical management of politics, and I hope that many of my esteemed friends in the other place will see it for what it is. We have got to send this back to the Commons. Regardless of whether we agree on a full ban or partial ban, we have a job to do. We must not lose this shot at helping and protecting our children in this way. We are not short of evidence; we are short of action.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, once upon a time, in a previous moral panic about children’s safety, parents reacted to the media and politicians catastrophising by stopping their offspring playing outside unsupervised. The unintended consequence was the creation of what became known as cotton wool kids, prone to risk aversion, anxiety, lack of resilience and social isolation. Ironically, to compensate, many of those children were forced to cultivate their activities online. Their social interactions became virtual, and here we are.

I worry that we risk similar unintended consequences now if we rush to pass a social media ban for under-16s, so I will be opposing Amendment 94A. I know it has become normalised that, whatever social, cultural or moral panics we encounter, we believe that we can legislate to make them go away. I fear that this sort of lawmaking can lead to avoiding tackling difficult problems and to attempts at quick-fix solutions that too often create a whole new raft of difficulties down the line.

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, blamed social media for eating disorders, radicalisation, terrorism, the mental health epidemic, ADHD, poor behaviour in the classroom, misogyny, violence against women and girls, and on and on. At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved. There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society’s ills.

I worry about attempts to push this through too quickly or to fast-track it. It is interesting that the three-week fast-track consultation put forward in the other place has been discussed as though it is holding things back. The leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, calls it more “dither and delay”. But this proposal is new; it has only just arrived here on Report as an amendment that would fundamentally change every citizen’s relationship with social media, not just children’s. I worry about attempts at steamrolling it through, with an assumption that everyone agrees that it is so obvious and inevitable that there is no point opposing it. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for an attempt at proportionality, even though I do not think it goes far enough.

We are hectored that this is what parents want. There has not been a referendum of parents, though there are polls. Many parents are pulling their hair out and will be tempted by it—it is so much easier to say, “You can’t because it’s against the law”, than it is to assert adult authority. Teenagers’ and children’s pester power can be the bane of all our lives. If only the law could be extended to ban other things and make them illegal—no, you cannot wear that hoodie; no, you cannot spend hours gaming; no, you cannot go to that sleepover; no, you cannot gorge on junk food; no, you cannot go to that party. In truth, this approach encourages parents to outsource their authority and shifts responsibility from parents to the state. All families ultimately are being told that they are incapable of managing their children's habits, and that is a dangerous precedent. It can disarm parents in the name of empowerment. Is there really a consensus among parents on this? Many of my friends are split down the middle, so I do not think we can claim the evidence is in.

What about the incontrovertible scientific evidence that backs a ban? The jury is out. The causal relationship between social media and mental well-being in teens and young people is much more contested than has been implied. Recent extensive research by academics at Manchester University found no evidence that social media has increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression. The chair of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, Professor Louis Appleby, points out that the evidence is, at best, circumstantial, noting that self-harming in the young began well before social media took hold in that age group. That reflects what I know from my own work in relation to mental ill-health and young people; I do not think it can totally be blamed on social media.

An Oxford University study of nearly 12,000 children showed no correlation between screen time, including social media, and mental health. Instead, the way in which children engage with social media is what determines its impact and—shock horror—in many instances, evidence shows the positive impact of social media use. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that no more research is needed. That is anti-scientific and complacent, and I do not think it is true.

Let us be clear about what this amendment as drafted would do in relation to user services. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out the dangers to, for example, WhatsApp, websites such as Wikipedia and so on. That needs clarifying at the very least.

Despite histrionic headlines, social media can be used for self-educational ends. There is a new generation of autodidacts who are teaching themselves coding, video producing, editing and even musical instruments, languages and chess. I know that sounds rose-tinted and a bit glib, but social media often is a tool for connections—finding your tribe, making new friends—and a place where you can cultivate solidarity and autonomy as a young person. It can be a counter to the social trend towards fragmentation.

What about allowing the young to explore diverse political perspectives? On the eve of 16 year-olds being given the vote, surely it is important, if not essential, that we do not narrowly restrict soon-to-vote teens to state-sanctioned media channels. We want them to broaden their horizons, and explore and develop a democratic curiosity about the world, and they are going to do that online. When talking to school pupils, as I do often, I recommend that they find out about their peers around the world as part of them learning about international relations. What civic lessons might British children learn by looking at those brave protesters in Iran whose commitment to freedom has given them the courage to take on a theocratic Islamic regime and whose stories we know because they used social media to organise and to connect with each other and the rest of the world? That was, of course, before the ayatollah shut down the internet—oh, the irony.

As for safety and whether this ban will throw children off a cliff edge, it risks not equipping youth with the skills to safely and responsibly navigate the online world, knowing how to identify problems, spot dodgy red flags and apply strategies to deal with them. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, pointed out, in all likelihood, many pre-16 year-olds will find ways of migrating to even riskier unregulated platforms or the dark web without guardrails and zero moderation. Our teenagers and children are clever and, dare I say it, devious. They will find a way. They will use VPNs—but it is okay, because noble Lords are going to ban those too. I hear that there is already a roaring trade in fake IDs among pre-teens.

Finally, how will over 16 year-old adults be affected by this ban? Whereas the Online Safety Act age-gated only certain types of harmful content, Amendment 94A would age-gate entire platforms, even when the content is child-friendly or harmless. According to Big Brother Watch, a 70 year-old accessing the neighbourhood news, a 50 year-old looking up the history of golf on Wikipedia, a 30 year-old small business owner responding to customers on Instagram and a 17 year-old wanting to message parents on the way home from school would all require age-verification measures. That is the threat to adult civil liberties and the right to privacy and, in effect, it means that we will have to digitally verify to participate in the public square. I do not necessarily think that young people will gain from this, despite the hyperbole.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report, and I think some of the contributions are in danger of erring on the wrong side of self-regulation. We should stick to the point; I will be very brief and simply try to explain for the benefit of the Government Front Bench, because in various Bills going through Parliament in the last month or so, this subject has raised itself in various forms. I sometimes notice the Front Bench being slightly amazed at what is coming at them from all sides and not necessarily understanding why. That is largely because they were not in your Lordships’ House at the time we went through the lengthy discussions about the Online Safety Act. What they are hearing today is a collective howl of rage and frustration across the House because what we thought we were very clear was meant to happen has not happened. I will give one or two facts which back up the view of my noble friend Lady Kidron that, whatever we do, we have to gather together—the right reverend Prelate made a very good point—and collectively send a message to the other place that this situation is simply not good enough.

Today, within the last 10 hours, a court case has been going on in California against Snap, Meta and TikTok where a group of parents are accusing those organisations of creating products which are addictive. It so happens that in the last 24 hours, Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, has settled with the complainants. That is because, I suspect, if they had not settled, the chief executive of Snapchat, Evan Spiegel, would shortly have had to appear in person in the court to answer the case against his company. He chose not to do so. Mr Zuckerberg is apparently also in the queue to give evidence at this trial, and it will be interesting to see whether his company takes the same route.

Yesterday, along with many other colleagues, I was part of a session of Learn with the Lords in the Education Centre. I took the opportunity to talk to the young people, most of whom were 14 and 15, about what they thought of a social media ban, which all of them were aware of—probably through social media. Almost without exception, they said they were against it and gave the sort of reasons one would expect, such as “That’s where we get our news from”, and so on. The teachers were completely and utterly in favour of a ban. We can take from that what we will, but I suspect the fact that they see day in and day out in the schoolroom the effect on the pupils they are trying to help, to develop and to manage—and to mitigate, in some cases, difficult behaviours—means that are completely united that this is unsustainable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that in Australia they have a different regulator, an e-safety commissioner. Comparing the e-safety commissioner in Australia with what we have in Ofcom is a bit like comparing “Crocodile Dundee” with “Dixon of Dock Green”. The difference is that stark.

Last week in the Peers’ Lobby, I met one of the bereaved parents whose child has died as a result of exposure to social media. I told that bereaved parent that a group of us were going to meet the chief executive of Ofcom within the next couple of weeks. He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Simon, would you give the chief executive a message from me?”. I said, “Yes, of course”. He said—and you will excuse my Anglo-Saxon—“Would you kick her up the arse?”.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that it is important, and it is the basis of the Equality Act, to recognise the rights of all those with protected characteristics within it. What was helpful in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the absolute clarification that trans people’s rights remain protected within the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place and that trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into the Equality Act.

Work is already under way to fulfil our commitment to advance the rights and protections afforded to LGBT+ people, and that includes delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and working with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve services for trans people.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister have any advice for women such as Miranda Newsom, who, assuming that the Supreme Court had settled the matter, challenged a biological male in the female-only changing room at a council-run leisure centre in Southwark and received a torrent of abuse from the man, yet it was she who was punished and barred from the gym? Can the Minister assure the House that after the victory of the Darlington nurses the Government are urgently instructing NHS bodies to bring their policy fully into compliance with the law? If they do not, they are complicit with unlawful behaviour of service providers.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government have been clear that the judgment provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act. We have been clear that therefore all providers should be following that, taking specialist legal advice where necessary, and ensuring that, with respect for everybody’s rights and dignity, we can make progress on this in a way that respects the law but also ensures that everybody is able to have the rights and protections that the Equality Act so importantly laid down in 2010.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I too oppose the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. I realise that Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, no longer does that directly, but it is intended as a staging post, and this is why I would like to talk about the issue.

As a child, I was subjected to physical punishment. My parents were overly strict. My father came from a military background and my mother had little patience with children. I was also a boarder at a Catholic school, where the nuns were extremely strict. On one occasion, I was caught talking to my neighbour and was made to kneel on the platform by the teacher’s desk with tape placed over my mouth for the rest of the lesson. This was a clear violation and would rightly be unacceptable today.

However, we must draw a distinction between physical punishment and hitting a child and an occasional light smack that causes no harm. These are not the same morally, psychologically or legally. English law reflects that distinction. Any punishment that causes injury, leaves marks, involves implements or amounts to abuse is illegal and rightly prosecuted. The defence of reasonable punishment applies only to the lightest chastisement where no harm is caused. It does not excuse abuse nor physical punishment. It prevents ordinary parents being treated as criminals when, from time to time, they apply proportionate discipline to an unruly child. To remove it is another step towards a nanny state where the balance between parental responsibility and state intervention is quietly but significantly shifted away from families and towards government control.

All children are not the same. Some respond to a word or a look and never need to be scolded; others test the boundaries. For those children, the calm assertion of parental authority is not cruelty but guidance, helping them learn limits, responsibility and respect for rules. I am also a parent. On one occasion, after repeatedly warning my eldest son, I smacked him lightly on his bottom. It did not hurt him, but he was so shocked that I followed through that he howled in indignation. His pride was hurt. After that, when I warned him, he believed me. It was not fear; it was authority, exercised once and never repeated.

Surely this should not be criminalised. Polling consistently shows that more parents favour retaining the current law than banning smacking. We are told that the law is unclear. It is not. The current test is simple. If harm is caused, the behaviour is illegal. Removing the defence would replace that clarity with subjective judgments, creating confusion for parents, police and social services.

The experience in Wales and Scotland, which my noble friend talked about, is that bans have led to thousands of additional referrals to social services, diverting attention from children who are genuinely at risk. A similar ban in England would cost at least £145 million, at a time when services are already under extreme pressure. What is needed is education, support and awareness, not criminal law. Legal bans invite denunciations, investigation and fear, not better parenting.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I saw Amendment 97, I was pleased to see that the focus was on the post-implementation review report on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act. I am keen that the UK Government dig deeper into the impact of what is known as the Welsh smacking ban. I am keen that the Government review the evidence and data and, I hope, draw a conclusion that this should not be brought into UK law—but that they do that by looking at the evidence.

As somebody in Wales, I have obviously been involved in this debate for some time. I have had lots of media discussions and spoken on the issue over the years. Having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talk about the report, I felt as though we probably read different reports and had different interpretations, which just shows that it is worth digging into. I have some serious reservations about the success of the law change, as there have been some rather unintended, though predictable, outcomes. I want to raise a few of those.

I understand that the proposers of this amendment are motivated by concern about the abuse of children, but it is important to note that we are all motivated by a concern about the abuse of children. That is something that we share. But one of my worries is the impact of the law change, given the pressures it is placing on social services in Wales. Thousands of new referrals have been made to Welsh social services that have involved the police, and these are costing millions of pounds and lots of time. To be honest, this can mean that real abuse is being squeezed out or relativised by what is happening.

The influx of referrals is not a surprise when any report of smacking automatically triggers an investigation by social services. The escalation of reports is no doubt because of the Welsh Government’s guidance to a wide range of organisations which work with, care for or volunteer with children that anyone who witnesses a parent smacking a child should immediately contact social services. My concern is that valuable resources are being taken away from protecting children who are at genuine risk of harm and diverted into trivial cases where harm has not been caused. Even if people ideologically do not agree with the chastisement of smacking, it is not the same as abuse. Even the most zealous anti-smacking campaigner—or so I thought, before I heard some people in this debate—should concede that a well-intentioned tap on the back of a tot’s hand or leg by a parent who loves their child does not mean that they are an abuser.

I was a bit shocked when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, say that any child might say, “If I don’t get a good grade, I’ll be beaten”. It is a shocking thing to hear a child say that, when it is actually illegal to beat a child in this country—of course it is. The idea that that is the same as smacking, in the way that the law in England permits, and the conflation of brutality with smacking—a mild physical chastisement as parental discipline—is the kind of sleight of hand that distorts the evidence, makes this a far too emotional discussion and is so insulting to parents. That is what I found shocking.

If we examine the guidance notes issued by various Welsh local authorities, we can see how resources that might be best spent protecting children at serious risk of beating if they do not pass their exams, for example—and that would be worth investigating—can become diverted. One example used in a guidance note was when a teacher reported that a young pupil stated his father smacked him because he was naughty. The advice from the Welsh Government was that the teacher should trigger a Section 47 investigation, which would include two uniformed officers visiting and talking to the four year-old. That sort of escalation, dragging the family into the orbit of social services and police forces, is what I worry about. There are obvious implications for the workload of front-line staff with a statutory duty to investigate all referrals, regardless of severity. That creates a danger of services being unable to prioritise cases where there is a genuine risk of abuse or neglect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, if I may speak again, I believe I was just accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, of insulting parents, which I have never been accused of before. I would like to explain myself slightly. The law, as far as I understand it, is that the bruise must be not visible within three days. On dark skin, you can get quite a lot of force into a mild slap to leave a bruise that cannot be seen in three days. If one side is that we are practically calling parents punch-drunk, mad people and the other is, “It’s a light tap, because a child has done something wrong”, there is a huge area between them. To call me insulting to parents is what I find insulting myself.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not think that that was an intervention on my speech, but there is a huge difference between a small tap and beating a child; that is the point. A small tap should not be illegal; beating a child is illegal.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, started her contribution, she said that we should look at the evidence from Wales, and I thought, fair enough. That is what the Government are going to do, are they not? But then, towards the end of her contribution, she said that we should look at the evidence from Wales but not emulate it. That evidence suggests that we take this course of action. We are all getting hung up and concerned about the harmful effects of social media and of mobile phones. What about the harmful effects of smacking? It is hard to believe that 40 years ago, we still had corporal punishment in schools; they probably debated it in this Chamber. Children were caned or slippered. A few noble Lords probably got up and said that this was not a good idea. We can imagine the contributions, at the time, from the likes of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about that suggestion. I am sorry—I must not do that.

We have had a debate, and the work and experiments in Wales have been mentioned several times. But the most important people in all this are the children, are they not? What about them? Children who experience physical punishment are up to 2.6 times more likely to develop mental health problems, and up to 2.3 times more likely to go on to experience harm through more serious forms of physical abuse. This is the most worrying thing to me.

In 2023-24, over 700 children—we are probably talking about young children—contacted Childline to complain about, worry about or cry about physical abuse. What do we do? We go chatting on about all sorts of other things. I am disappointed that we are not having a Division on this: I would like to know how people feel. I am sure that the majority of Labour Members are absolutely on the side of doing away with corporal punishment. Some have been noticeably quiet, and I understand why; that is perhaps a cruel dig. I also accept, however, that we want to look at what has gone on in Wales and use that as the basis for coming to a conclusion. I am sure that those Members are genuine about this and are not using it as an opportunity to delay the matter beyond the general election. If they are still in office—and they could well be—could they please bring this forward immediately after the general election, and let us have a vote on it? This is a corporal punishment issue that is just as important as it was 40 years ago.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise that, as my noble friend says, trans people are concerned about the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling. As I have said, we are considering both that ruling and its implications carefully. However, we are clear, as was that ruling, that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Ministers have noted in many of our exchanges that the Bill which we have discussed was a great improvement on the original Bill put forward by the previous Government. That is true, but it did not make it a perfect Bill. In fact, all sides of the House have constructively improved the content of the Bill. I really appreciate that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, put forward amendments that were not rewrites of the Bill, as we sometimes see in this House, but were based on listening to the debates that we had in Committee and so on. It is therefore much improved.

I want to note, in general but relating to this Bill, that those of us who have raised issues around civil liberties, privacy rights and transparency were not doing so to be soft on those who fraudulently take advantage of public funds in any way whatever. Those issues of civil liberties, privacy rights, transparency, accountability and so on were based on a firm belief that when the state takes more power, it is our responsibility to represent the public—not just in terms of money that is taken from them but the threat to rights that might be taken from them. I appreciate that the Government Front Bench listened to some of those concerns. I wish that they had listened to a few more but, for now, I think there was constructive engagement from all sides, and I appreciate that very much.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am probably the last person to speak and mull over all that has happened. I thank sincerely the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, and their team. They have been very helpful to us in answering our questions, trying to agree with us and offering a meeting to discuss the part of this Bill on carers. We appreciate and look forward to that departmental meeting, together with, I hope, one of our MPs, so that we can have a reasonable view towards ping-pong and what goes forward.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as everyone has, for many things that we worked closely on and supported. I also thank particularly the Conservative Front Bench, who have not been confrontational but have tried to work to get a better Bill. The Bill has been quite exemplary in the way that people have worked towards improving it in many ways. I obviously also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer, who has worked with me on the Bill, and Adam Bull, our legislative and political adviser, who has been giving me support throughout.

We have among us—the Cross Benches, the Government, the Conservative Benches, this Bench and the Bishops’ Bench—all improved the Bill. I hope that the improvements we have made will last through ping-pong and that we end up with a better Bill—not a confrontational Bill but one that will help public funds, which is obviously its aim, while protecting the vulnerable in society who are not really going to be the paymasters of dealing with errors in the past. Congratulations to all, including the staff in the background of the Government who have made this such an interesting exercise, even though I am surprised that we have got to Third Reading so quickly after Report, and in almost indecent haste. If all legislation could be so quick, it would be a great advantage to this House and the other House. I hope that the Bill passes successfully.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that gives a good explanation of the way in which the EVM operates and all the steps we have taken. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I appreciate the reassurances given by the Minister—they are taken into account—but none the less I have two amendments that could go even further. I hope that the Minister can listen.

Amendment 50 seeks to ensure that affected parties are informed by their own bank when they are flagged following an eligibility verification notice. To note, the EVM will by design, as has been conceded, detect not only serious fraudsters but 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. 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 stress that this amendment is not intended to compromise investigations or tip off fraudsters, as was implied in Committee. In fact, it would come into play only after an individual has been identified by the EVM. This matters because one principle of the rule of law, which I know this Government are very keen on, is that if you are accused of wrongdoing, you should be told the basis for that suspicion.

Being flagged by the EVM should not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion in and of itself, as dealt with in Amendment 52, which I will fully support when we get to it. There is even less reason for an individual who is not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing but who may be the victim of DWP administrative error to be subjected to further checks and requirements without even being told why. It is just not good enough for the DWP to warn people in the personal information charter that the bank account information for the recipients of benefits may be provided to the department. People need to be informed at the moment when the powers bite—that is, once they have been flagged. It is important to note that organisations such as the Public Law Project are keen on seeing this being made a reality.

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 DWP Ministers, highlighting the potential human impact and real-life costs of this Bill’s powers. It included testimony from members of the public receiving pension credit, who told their stories to Silver Voices, the advocacy organisation for older people. I was 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. Sue 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”.


I appreciate that the DWP has gone to great pains to emphasise that it does not consider the EVM to be a government surveillance power, but the idea that you could be flagged by an algorithm that has rifled through your private bank statements and reported you back to the department for further checks, all without you being informed, is—and I say this tentatively—Kafkaesque, so I would like Amendment 50 to correct that.

I have also tabled Amendment 62, which requires that the code of practice include scrutiny provisions about the algorithm used by banks—an issue I raised quite a lot in Committee, with some support from fellow Peers. The situation is that the bank accounts of millions of people will be scoured by third-party algorithms that neither the Government nor banks had any hand in creating. It is therefore essential that we be able to scrutinise exactly what these algorithms are doing. I know that the Minister understands the concerns; she has just explained and articulated that well. The Government have said that the code of practice is not the appropriate vehicle for such scrutiny, but we still have not been provided with any alternative. What is more, there has been ministerial opposition to amendments designed to provide greater transparency over the eligibility indicators, which I find worrying.

The Minister characterised the algorithm that will be deployed for the EVM as merely comprising two tests that must be met to determine whether an individual can be flagged: whether an account receives a relevant benefit, and whether the account meets the criteria set by the DWP and the EVM. The Minister also said in Committee, and again today, 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 is a big but—that review will only take place on the basis of information returned from the EVM, meaning that we have to be able to scrutinise exactly what is being picked up by the algorithm. They may be simple tests, but they will be applying unpublished eligibility indicators that can complicate issues, depending on what those eligibility indicators require banks to search for.

There may be little to scrutinise in algorithms which simply detect whether someone has more than £16,000 in their bank account, or whether, 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, the algorithms deployed by banks will necessarily be more involved. For example, for relevant benefits currently in scope, such as pension credit, employment and support allowance, and universal credit, could the DWP require banks to find people who they suspect are claiming ESA when not actually suffering from a disability or health condition that affects how much they can work? Or could the DWP require banks to identify recipients of pension credit who live with a partner but claim to live alone?

That might be misplaced suspicion, but exactly how the algorithm determines this sort of complex information, and what information it extracts to reach its conclusions, requires oversight. People will otherwise be worried and paranoid; we otherwise risk them being identified for further scrutiny and investigation, potentially on the basis of flawed algorithmic logic. As I emphasised during Committee, determining whether bank accounts meet the eligibility criteria for an EVN requires judgment. It might not be human judgment but algorithmic judgment, yet the question is: what are those criteria? What will the algorithm be asked to search for?

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister, please, to heed the warning and not let fraud be the way we are amending police powers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for tabling these amendments. I think they are genuinely key, and very important to resolve before we pass this Bill. I do not think they are minor or unimportant at all. Throughout the debates in Committee, and continuing here, concerns have been raised by some of us about the enormous state power created by the Bill. Largely, we have focused on things such as privacy rights and so on, and these are very important, but this actually gives draconian powers of force to a new body in a way that should make us gulp, 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 that we have to worry about future Governments. It is a kind of lurking spectre. Everybody knows who they are referring to. There is a notion that there will be future nasty Governments out there who might misuse the powers but that this Government are absolutely well intentioned. I think that is a little bit of a cop-out because it is this Government who are creating an enormous new set of state powers, and this Government have to answer to why they want these particular powers of force.

I think that is important, not because I have any suspicion about the intentions of the noble Baronesses who are our Ministers here—obviously not—but, none the less, what are the Government doing accruing this force?

I was squeamish about the PFSA having police powers to search, enter and seize, but it did not have the reasonable force clause. The thing I find most difficult to understand is the idea that the sort of major fraudsters that the first half of the Bill deals with are somehow subject to only half the force, but, suddenly, we get on to the people on benefits and physical force is justified. What does that say about our set of priorities? I am not being paranoid to go, “What? You actually think those people are the enemy, so you need to use physical force?” That is one thing.

The second thing on that, by the way, is the idea of physical force against the body versus physical force against property. Of course, there is a distinction, but I do not know if noble Lords have ever been there when somebody has come in and started booting your furniture round or kicking down the doors—I have; it was not the DWP or, indeed, the police. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of somebody destroying property around them will know that it is intimidating, frightening and scary, so I am worried not just about the bodily force but about having the right to do that to your property.

To return to our discussion on an earlier amendment, these are DWP officers. What? I do not want DWP civil servants, who might have been on a minor training course, to have that power. I think it is wrong. For them to have that power of physical force aimed at people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious.

I note that a number of times the Minister has emphasised the importance of this Bill being hard on fraud. I just want to reiterate a point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made earlier, which is that worrying about some of the aspects of this Bill does not make you soft on fraud. As far as I am concerned, when public money is fraudulently obtained by criminals or malign forces, or just by people on benefits acquiring money they do not deserve, I consider that to be an attack on the public, and I think we should be hard on it. But the way that you demonstrate you are hard is not by playing the hard man. It is not about throwing your weight around; it is about having the appropriate form of state legislation to deal with it. I am afraid this part of the Bill really gives me pause about what is driving this, and I do not even think it will get us anywhere in resolving the problem of people malignly stealing public money.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I would just like to ask the Minister three direct questions. First, why are people in England and Wales so much nastier that they need this force, whereas the Scots do not? That is not, it seems to me, a very sensible distinction. It should be either all of us or none of us.

Secondly—because I think it should be none of us —can the Minister explain why it is suitable for DWP officers to do something against individuals who are thought to be fraudulent, while officers of a similar kind do not have the power to do it if it is organised crime? Can she explain why that is?

My third question is extremely simple. Everybody who has ever had a ministerial job that involves this kind of thing knows, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said so clearly, that you absolutely need to be trained to do this. Can the Minister say who is trained, how much training they have and whether there is a budget for that training? If her answer is not satisfactory on any of those, I suggest she accepts the amendment which gets rid of this entirely.

Let us get to a sensible world in which the police have powers—for which, in most places, people trust them—and civil people do not have powers. We should remember the comment from the noble and right reverend Lord that was very simple: you know when a policeman is there, but how do you really know that this is a DWP individual? You have to look at some piece of paper, perhaps, but you do not know that. I think this is a very dangerous proposal.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, but I really want to follow on from what the right reverend Prelate said about racism. Racism has been rife in schools from as far back as I can remember, but at that time social media was not there to inflame it further. Over recent years, it has become racism about not just colour but religion. The right reverend Prelate mentioned Islamophobia, but most underreported acts of bullying against faith are not Islamophobia.

People from my community endure it quietly. Where do they report it when, as often as not, it is the most misunderstood way of bullying? Parents say to me that children have told them that they will burn in hell and that, if they do not change their faith, this or that will happen. We have to find solutions that involve not just the teachers—they have more than enough to do already—but making sure, first, that what we say and do is reasonable. Secondly, families cannot abdicate from their duties in what happens in and out of school. They need to be part of the solution because, unfortunately, we have a lot of dysfunctional families— not by choice but, often, because of the economics of everything. We need to find ways for every child to go to school knowing that they will learn, like every other child, and not be fearful of going.

I grew up in a fearful atmosphere. That fearful atmosphere is back—even more now than ever before. It is amplified by social media. So I say, on my noble friend’s amendments, that yes of course the police have a duty; so do local authorities. They need to be the support mechanisms for the teachers, not standing on the sidelines waiting to offer help. They should be intrinsic in the integrated plans to make sure that we can respond to the needs of children who come with problems—not of their own making, mostly, but from their surroundings and their environment. We should not make excuses and say that it is acceptable and that everything should be on the teachers. It is not fair, and they are not well enough equipped.

As a child who went through a miserable time at school, I knew what bullying is like, dreading to go into school in case you are be beaten up by the next skinhead around the corner. I did not become a bully; I actually became resilient. We have to make sure that resilience is part of the teaching of our children.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will raise some reservations that I have about Amendments 501 and 502E, on bullying in schools, and Amendment 464, on the reporting of racism or faith-based bullying.

Bullying is a label that has been subject to the phenomena of concept creep. Bullying has now expanded enormously. It is an elastic term and so a wide range of behaviours can be described as bullying. I fear that it is becoming a vehicle to encourage pupils to lack resilience —a point was just raised about how we deal with the issue of resilience. I have written about this extensively. For now, I note that, via anti-bullying initiatives in schools already, pupils are taught that words hurt and damage, that words can become interchangeable with violence, and that name-calling is on a par with physical intimidation. Inevitably, that can lead the young to believe that speech is violence. I think all of us can acknowledge that that is a problem at the moment, with people who say that speech is violence then feeling able to use violence to deal with speech they dislike—a very current issue.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge upon the Minister who replies to the debate that all I have been proposing is common sense but is not properly provided for at the present time. The Michael Sieff Foundation made a calculation of the savings that would be made over a five-year period if the sorts of measures in these amendments were taken. It runs to over £100 million because, if we can help those children not to end up in custody and when they get into trouble with the police to be disposed of by the court in a way that does not lock them up and take them out of education and their families, we have a far better chance of making them into responsible citizens who might even pay their taxes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is important because I think we have a crisis in SEND provision. I am particularly attracted to Amendment 498, on the SEND provision review, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Also, on Amendment 502V in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the need for more transparency and reporting on SEND funding in state-funded schools, that seems a key and obvious demand, because the SEND issue is having a huge financial impact on schools and education in general.

But for me, as well as that, the issue of SEND provision is important because it potentially shapes how young people see themselves, and in some instances they are being encouraged to develop a habit of dependence and pathologising their own everyday experiences. One in five children in the UK are now identified as having SEND needs, and the number of education, health and care plans for those with the most severe needs has increased by 83% from 2015-16 to 2023-24. The number of 11 to 15 year-olds receiving disability living allowance for which the main condition determining eligibility is a learning disability such as ADHD increased by 70% between 2018 and 2024. So something peculiar seems to be going on and, as part of explaining what is happening here, we need to acknowledge that there is a widening social definition of mental health and neurodiversity—an issue I will raise briefly again in the next group.

Informally, if you go into any school and talk to pupils of all ages, as I do—obviously, as teachers do and those who are familiar with young people—young people regularly describe themselves these days through the prism of a range of mental health acronyms or their particular divergence from the neurotypical norm. They use the language of medical textbooks and psychiatry with ease. Meanwhile, teachers too think in terms of these labels—I am sure that we are all watching “Educating Yorkshire” on Channel 4; it is great viewing—and, almost inevitably, if there is a behavioural issue, staff suggest testing the pupil for ADHD as both an explanation and a solution. So investigating what is going on here is essential, and that is why I am interested in the review.

In that context, I hope that the tablers of the amendment and the Minister get the opportunity to read—if they have not read it already—a new Policy Exchange report entitled Out of Control: Addressing the Rise in Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Disorders amongst Children and Young People. I do not always agree with Policy Exchange, but I found this report fascinating. One issue it identifies is a bug in the system of support. It argues that it is

“designed to meet the needs of a small number of specialised cases, rather than the sizeable”

numbers that it is now expected to support. Even more troublingly, it says:

“These systems of support can also incentivise diagnosis-seeking behaviour … which has squeezed support for those with the most severe needs”.


Those kinds of issues were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, in an earlier group.

So, to return to spending, spending on EHCPs for those with SEND has ballooned, but funding per head has fallen by nearly a third since 2015-16. So I hope that the tablers of the amendments and the Minister will consider the risks of overdiagnosis in relation to SEND but also how current support may inadvertently encourage an escalation in perceived need, rather than target the support where it is absolutely needed the most, as has been vividly described by some of the speakers on this group.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, in contrast to the previous speaker, I would say the following. I do not know how many noble Lords attended the rally held in Parliament Square yesterday by parents and children about the SEND review, on getting it right, or how many noble Lords attended the drop-in held in our committee room upstairs, which was full of joy and optimism, with lots of Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum—including our new Schools Minister, Georgia Gould—who called in to listen to parents and children. It gives me hope and optimism that, if those listening exercises are taking place as this review goes on, we will end up with something that is worth having and that has involved listening to the people who are at the sharp end of this.

I am actually encouraged by the fact that our new Minister in the Commons has been the leader of a council, has been the Local Government Minister and has hands-on experience of what it is like dealing with the SEND system. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I am encouraged that the Government are listening to parents and children with that direct experience, and that gives me hope that this review is going to produce the right outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I want to underline, in respect of Amendment 462, the importance of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about reducing the pressures on CAMHS. The family courts are being frustrated, as I know from recent experience, and impeded in reaching necessary long-term decisions about the future for children. They are told, week by week, that they are waiting for an appointment with CAMHS and then that they are waiting for an assessment report from CAMHS—and then that they are waiting for the recommended treatment to take place. If Amendment 462 serves to help with those tasks, children, their parents and the courts will benefit. The courts are being criticised for the delays in reaching decisions, and certainly the problems with CAMHS contribute to those delays.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I really want to challenge the assumption of some of the amendments in this group that what we need is more dedicated mental health practices and provision in schools. One of the problems is that there is too much emphasis on mental illness and mental health in education at the moment. That awareness is taking up too much time in school life, is over-preoccupying young people and is becoming a real problem.

If you look at what is going on in schools at the moment, there are indeed endless numbers of staff, volunteers and organisations with responsibility for emotional well-being: mental health leads, support teams, emotional literacy support and assistance, mental health first aiders, counsellors, and well-being officers. If you go into any school, the walls are covered in information about mental illness, mental health and so on; it is everywhere you go. Yet despite this booming, school-based mental health industrial complex, almost, the well-being of pupils continues to deteriorate—or that is what we are told.

Mental health problems and diagnoses are rising at the same time as all the awareness initiatives are taking place. Something is going wrong and that at least needs some investigation, but these amendments just assume that we should carry on doing the same and more of the same. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, I think that real, critical thinking needs to be done around some of the awareness campaigns.

I want to challenge the idea that schools are the vehicle for tackling the undoubted spiralling crisis of unhappiness among young people. It is also important that we untangle that from the crisis of CAMHS. There is actually a serious problem in NHS mental health support for children, and I would like that to be taken on. That is very different from the kind of discussion we are having here about schools, which is that mental distress becomes such a focus of all the discussions in schools.

I tend to agree—for possibly the only time—with Tony Blair on this. He said,

“you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life”.

That is true. Starting with children, we are encouraging the young to internalise the narrative of medicalised and pathologised explanations and the psychological vocabulary of adopting an identity of mental fragility, and that is not doing them any good. That can then create an increasing cohort of young people and parents demanding official diagnosis, more intervention and more support at school.

Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley, argues this in his new book, No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis. He says that it has become crucial to reassess what constitutes mental illness, so that we can decide who needs to be treated with limited resources and who can be helped in other ways. He is talking about the NHS, and he warns that the NHS has buckled under a tsunami of referrals for some conditions. He also says that other state services such as schools are straining to the point of dysfunction in dealing with this issue, and I tend to agree with him.

I admire the passionate intervention by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, calling for measurement and evidence, but one of the problems is that I am not entirely sure we know what we are measuring. There is no clear definition of well-being to measure. The psychiatric profession is making the point that the definitions of what constitutes mental illness are now contended—there are arguments about them. What are you measuring? This woolliness of definitions is becoming a problem in schools.

The counsellor Lucy Beney, in her excellent recent pamphlet, worries that this means that mental illness in schools is leading to a kind of diagnostic inflation itself, as pupils compare notes on what they have got and go to different professionals to ask what they have got and so on. It can create a sort of social or cultural contagion, enticing the young to see all the ups and downs of life through the prism of mental health, which can be demoralising and counterproductive. There is no doubt that too many children and young people are not thriving mentally and emotionally in the UK today, and I would like to have that discussion, but I do not think that well-being and mental health is necessarily the way to do it. Schools are definitely not the places to solve it.

A lot of the well-being initiatives, counselling and therapeutic interventions encourage young people to look at life through the subjective filter of their own feelings and anxieties. That, in turn, is likely to lead to inward-looking, self-absorbed children. The role of education in schools is to introduce new generations to the wonders of the millennia, of knowledge outside their experience, which takes them outside themselves. That is what schools are for. That is what teachers are good at. It is not just about gaining credentials. In fact, I hate the credentialing aspect of it. But if you get into a brilliant novel, the law of physics, the history of our world or evolution, you forget your troubles. If you are constantly talking to the counsellor about your troubles, yourself and endlessly thinking of your own well-being, it is boring, demoralising and stunting. It is enough to make anybody depressed, including the young. It is important that schools do not get completely obsessed with this issue. I fear that they have, and it has made matters worse.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, first, I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the World Health Organization has a clear definition of well-being:

“Well-being is a positive state experienced by individuals in society … Well-being encompasses quality of life and the ability of people and societies to contribute to the world with a sense of meaning and purpose.”


So this is not about self-focus; it is clear that it is about people being in a position to contribute. The WHO goes on to say that a society’s well-being can be

“determined by the extent to which it is resilient, builds capacity for action, and is prepared to transcend challenges”.

Perhaps most of us can agree that that is something society needs to do much better.

I am afraid that I disagree entirely with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said that the Dutch score particularly highly, along with Denmark, in the recent PISA figures on children’s well-being, and we score astonishingly badly. I was looking at a publication from a few years ago, The Dutch Way in Education. The publisher of that notes how the Dutch system measures not only academic achievement but also the well-being and involvement of students. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, that I have raised the study he referred to a number of times. I would like to raise it tonight, but in the interests of the Committee making progress, I will not. Every time we are told how much progress our schools have made, saying, “Look at the exam results”, I say, look at the state of well-being of our pupils. I say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that if we measure only the exam results, that is what we are going to judge our schools on. That is what we have been doing, and it is what has got us into this position.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty”.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, gave us an inspiring scene-setter for the next groups of amendments that we are discussing. It was a taster of why the decisions that we make on this Bill matter to so many pupils and young people. This is why I urge the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath-water and, in many instances, to think again. I have my Amendment 506A in this group, which simply says that, before the Bill is passed or enacted, the Government’s own curriculum review needs to be published and consulted on.

The legislation before us requires that all schools follow the national curriculum, yet there is no agreed national curriculum. Instead, the Government want to review that curriculum, which is fair enough, but that review will not even be published before we are asked to vote “blind”. It is simply wrong for a Bill to force schools to follow a particular curriculum when we have not been told what is in it: cart before horse and all that.

More broadly, we have spent a long, long time on this Bill so far. Outside of here, the Bill is informally known as the Schools Bill, yet we have managed not to discuss the whole reason for schools—to educate children into the world of knowledge—until this point. Educating children requires us to agree on what the content of that education consists of. The curriculum is not, or should not be, an afterthought. It is key: the raison d’être for schools as vehicles used by one generation to pass on to the next the canonical knowledge of humanity. When taught well, it is our greatest tool for social mobility. It is neither a fixed body of knowledge nor frozen in aspic. It changes over time. It is often contested and can be challenged, but it is a key component of educating the young.

The argument epitomised by this group of amendments asks whether every school needs to follow the same curriculum that every school must follow, yet we do not know what curriculum we are talking about, despite how important the curriculum is. The Government recognise that, which is why they set up the review. Taking three of the amendments we have here gives us some sort of meat on what the curriculum bone might be or what the arguments might be. One calls for financial education in primary schools, which we have already heard motivated. There is one to come on education for growing food and food preparation and another on education for voting.

You might say that those curriculum-related amendments are “hobby-horse” amendments. I am not saying that in an insulting way: they suggest the interests of the people putting them forward. They could all be creative and positive in a particular head’s hands with certain groups of pupils, depending on how they were used. If you get any group of teachers, parents, adults or indeed pupils together at any time and ask what should go into the curriculum, there are always very lively and creative discussions about priorities, what should matter, and so on and so forth.

The point I am making is that, even at the best of times, the curriculum is something that is a source of dispute. It can be liberating, transformative and inspiring, but it can be—and we all know this to be true—overly ideological, propagandist, politicised and used as a device for social engineering. As I said at Second Reading, I worry when Professor Becky Francis says that her curriculum review will look at what is taught through a “social justice lens”, with an emphasis on inclusivity. I am afraid I think of some of the more divisive aspects of identity politics and some of the arguments that have been had over critical race theory in schools, decolonisation and so on. It fills me with dread.

This Government have already had to pick up the pieces of curriculum mis-steps in relation to RSHE, as parents across the UK have become shocked to discover that their children were covering highly sexualised and age-inappropriate content and that some schools were affirming children in their chosen gender identities, a form of social transitioning now broadly discredited. I commend the Government for tackling that and taking it on: the point I am making is that all of that was inspired by centralised curriculum diktats. I therefore think we have to consider what the centralised curriculum diktat for all schools will be after the curriculum review.

Professor Francis has apparently said that the review will look at the alleged problem that the curriculum is too heavy. My problem is that we are now being asked to vote on legislation in a “curriculum lite” way, with the curriculum absent, despite a hugely significant mandate that all schools must follow this curriculum.

We are told that the curriculum review will address barriers to attainment, but so far the hints we have been given into the review look to be blaming exams and a curriculum that is overly academic for creating too much stress and anxiety for pupils—something that I completely disagree with. This hints at a new assessment regime that will be less stressful, and I am afraid that that fuels genuine concerns among educators that the curriculum review might amount to a recipe for lower academic standards. As we have seen in both Scotland and Wales, which have completely upended their curriculum in recent years, attainment has plummeted, sometimes below the OECD average.

I have not yet decided whether the Bill’s Clause 47 is totally wrong-headed and should be dropped, although I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, made a very good case that was worth considering. I am sold on the idea of a common entitlement for all children, and I am not opposed in principle to a national curriculum for all. But the Government should not be rigid and there should be more flexibility. Amendment 444 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would allow for that, so I am very interested in that.

However, none of this is the point of my amendment. This Bill says that all schools follow a national curriculum but will not tell us what is in it before we are being asked to rubber-stamp it. It reminds me of one FE student I taught. He was a bit of a cheeky chap. He missed a deadline for his GCSE and he said out loud in the class: “Can’t you just pass me, miss? I’ll show you the essay when I’ve written it later”. I thought that was a bit of a cheek, and I am afraid the same cheek is being displayed by the Government. I urge them to get their essay in on time, or at least to allow us to not have to vote until we have seen the essay.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for that. It has made me think, and I will come back to some of the points she made.

In the 1970s, we did not have a national curriculum and schools could teach whatever they liked. There was only one subject they had to teach, and that was RE. Along came the William Tyndale School in London, which decided that its curriculum was going to be progressively radical and its teaching methods very child-centric. Relationships at the school broke down completely between staff and children, and the Government of the day had to step in. Then came along a Mr Ken Clarke—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—with his national curriculum, which said that we as a society have a duty to spell out what we expect our school children to learn. The national curriculum was born. But it is not a national curriculum, because it is not taught in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and, as we know, it is not taught in over half of our schools, because they can choose what they want to teach.

These amendments make us question what we should teach. Do we think we should teach financial education in school? I think we should, but why should it be left to an individual school to decide that? Should we not, as a society, decide that? I firmly believe that water safety should be taught in schools, but it is not down to me; it is down to individual academies to make that decision. Should we insist that every primary school pupil should have swimming lessons and be able to swim 25 metres before they leave primary school? I think that is really important—I wonder how many other people think that is important. But it is not down to us; it is down to individual academies.

I welcome the curriculum review. I did not put down an amendment saying that water safety should be included because I am not carrying out the curriculum review, but the organisation I am a patron of has written and given evidence as to why that should be the case, as I think a number of people have for financial education. We wait to see what the review suggests.

I believe that one of the strengths of academies has been that they have built flexibility into the curriculum of their choice. I am just making the case—it will not be for me to decide—that there could be an opportunity for all schools to have some flexibility when deciding their curriculums.

I will end by discussing what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. She is right, but each individual academy that is deciding its own curriculum does not come to us and ask whether we agree with it. They just get on with it—they are just allowed to do it. Maybe the noble Baroness is right that there should be a political decision about what is taught in our national curriculum. That is a very interesting thought, and I will leave the Committee with it.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too rise very briefly. A number of us have raised this scandal throughout Committee and the Minister has rightly said, “Well, there’s an independent review, I really can’t comment until we get the findings”. I say, “If we can’t comment until we get the findings of the independent review, the Government shouldn’t be taking money from the carers. That would seem obvious to me. Let’s wait until we’ve got the findings of the independent review”.

However, this speaks to the moral dilemma that was very well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. It is something that has been troubling many of us throughout Committee: the Bill fails to distinguish between the ways people are treated for error and for fraud. Through no fault of their own, they end up in some instances being criminalised and certainly subject to some quite severe powers. That has always felt morally unjustifiable.

Another point this raises is that, although we constantly say that the moral case for this is that the money must be reclaimed, many instances of error seem to be due to errors made by the DWP, yet there is never any clarity about how, morally, it might be asked to pay. I am not suggesting that it pays financially, but if we are saying that those who make an error must pay, I do not understand why the DWP has not, as part of the Bill, made it clear which errors made by the department or state bodies the public will be able to hold them to account for when they are made. The scandal of the carers has cut through with the public: people know about it and are discussing it, and they in no way think that these people are welfare scroungers, frauds or doing anything wrong. So I urge the Government in this instance to be very clear that they will not act, as this amendment rightly argues, at least until the inquiry has brought its conclusions into the public arena.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I hope to be even more brief. I have sympathy for this amendment, but it is backward-looking, as it relates to situations that have already happened. We also need to stop them happening in the future. These problems have arisen because of a very badly designed benefit. It has a cliff-edge threshold. Cliff-edge thresholds will always be the ones that cause problems, so I really hope that we learn the lessons from this situation and stop applying cliff-edge thresholds to benefits. It does not work and is almost guaranteed to create problems of this nature.

--- Later in debate ---

We believe, as I said at the beginning, that this is a very serious matter, and I urge the Minister accept the amendment, or to work with colleagues to bring forward a similar provision at a later date, perhaps on Report. We have a duty not only to recover fraudulently claimed funds but to stop that fraud happening in the first place. This is one step that will help us do just that. Going forward to tackle this issue, any steps that the Government take now to understand the scale of the problem will be most welcome. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as we approach the end of Committee, it has been refreshing, even though we are not in the main Chamber, that there has been so much general consensual, constructive discussion. We have had a lot of interesting, erudite, probing amendments—erudite inasmuch as they have been thoughtful and have tried to get to the heart of what we think is happening with this Bill and what we need to see changed. It has been enjoyable working across parties, including the Front Bench, the Opposition, Back-Benchers, Cross-Benchers, non-affiliated Peers and so on.

I have got that out of the way so that I can say that I do not know why on earth the main Opposition are obsessed with sickfluencers and have tabled this amendment, and I therefore want to speak to it. One of the reasons is because I think the amendment misses the target completely and draws together some of the issues around why I have had some worries about the Bill in general. Let me explain. I am speaking against Amendments 125A and 129A, which focus on the problem of sickfluencers and those using electronic communications and the internet to help people “circumvent eligibility checks”.

This should not be made into any kind of criminal offence—with, according to the amendment, a threat of up to one year in prison—but we do have a cultural problem of encouraging and inciting increasing numbers to identify themselves as sick and in need of state support. I think that is where the focus should be, not on these malevolent so-called sickfluencers corrupting the nation. I am worried that these amendments miss the target and potentially distract our gaze from where we should be targeting.

For example, in relation to circumventing eligibility checks, I am sure noble Lords are aware of a recent story from Oxford University, which has admitted that, because of a long waiting list and a logjam for diagnosis in relation to ADHD, it has decided that it will use as supporting documentation a referral to a GP or to an NHS assessment service as sufficient for students to get special concessions in exams and assessments. This is one of our top academic institutions allowing young people to circumvent the eligibility checks that were there until recently. They can gain benefits from this much lower eligibility check, which is inevitably likely to incentivise self-diagnosis among those students. It is in that context that we have seen the growth of sickfluencers.

Videos with the hashtag “#mentalhealth” have amassed something like 17 billion views on TikTok over recent years, according to an academic study. But they have been about self-diagnosis, not about how we can rip off PIPs. They are, broadly, a cultural problem. My worry is that we are seeing the growth of what one psychiatrist has labelled the “mental health industrial complex”: increasing numbers of people prepared to enter into this discussion about what mental health is beyond the medical profession. That often comprises a plethora of therapists, who are unregulated, well-being experts and even mental health charities with huge budgets—some from government contracts—that have got us into a situation where increasing numbers of people are culturally incentivised to view the trials and tribulations of life and feelings of unhappiness and depression through the pathologised prism of medical labels. This is something that Tony Blair talked about last year, on which I uncharacteristically agreed with him.

These sickfluencers are leading to a huge spike in numbers adopting an identity of mental fragility and illness and creating an increasing cohort of citizens demanding official diagnosis statements, NHS interventions, pharmacological and therapeutic treatment and, of course, welfare support. That is fuelling and feeding into some of the controversies around personal independent payments, increasing the numbers on disability living allowance and so on.

I am trying to avoid that particular row about cuts in welfare, which are causing such consternation for the Government at the moment. My point is that it is not online sickfluencers—it is such a stupid word—who have created this culture of encouraging people to view themselves as in need of support. I have a lot of sympathy with the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, who conceded that mental health conditions are being overdiagnosed, meaning that the number of working-age adults who we officially designate as incapacitated and in need of various forms of state support are being effectively written off as young people. It is to do with overdiagnosis. That is where all our energy should be. One of the reasons why I have kicked back against a lot of Part 2 of this Bill, some parts of which are draconian overreach, as a sledgehammer to crack a nut is that there is a much deeper problem in why the welfare bill is so huge that goes beyond people acting fraudulently in relation to benefits.

I would be more sympathetic if the Opposition had taken on the real problems here. Governments of all parties, the previous one and this, have pushed official awareness campaigns, which encourage ever greater numbers of people to see themselves as in need of welfare and provide a script for people to follow. I have written extensively about this in a different context. Children in playgrounds use the therapeutic language of mental ill health. They got that from adults. We have to ask what is going on.

Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist at Maudsley and author of a new book called No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis, notes that

“the more people are aware of a particular illness, the more people start to identify with the symptoms”.

Officially backed awareness campaigns are really problematic. I have just written the foreword to a new pamphlet entitled Suffer the Children: Why Having a ‘Mental Health Professional’ in Every School is not the Answer, brilliantly written by Lucy Beney. She notes that schools now have a veritable army of educational mental health practitioners, emotional literacy support assistants, mental health first-aiders and so on, and the outcome of this is more and more pupils describing themselves as suffering from mental ill health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the final group, which I am pleased to open. I thank noble Lords who have participated in this Committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, on behalf of my friend Lady Finn, and all the officials for their answers to remarks and questions. I know that spending hours in Grand Committee is not a massively appealing prospect, particularly on these rather hot and stuffy days. We probably all deserve a drink after this.

Over the course of these days, we have raised some important questions and concerns that we have for the Government on a Bill that, despite its technical title, is quite important. I feel that the Committee has come together on several key issues around safeguarding, proper independent oversight of these powers and the costs, as I said a moment ago, that we will impose on banks.

We have outlined areas of the Bill that could threaten the well-being of and access to services for benefits claimants, we have raised concerns over the powers granted to the PSFA and we have brought our remarks not only on these Benches but across the Committee back to the principle of that important word “proportionality”. While we need to tackle the issue of public sector fraud robustly, we must do so in a way that is nuanced, safe and effective. This is a significant Bill in respect of the problem that it is trying to tackle and the powers that it is seeking to grant. It deserves our full attention and scrutiny for that reason, and I feel that much of the debate that we have had reflects that point.

Amendment 131 is a sunset clause, requiring that the net benefit of provisions in the Act must exceed £500 million per annum at the end of a period of five years. Its basic purpose is to set a standard for the performance and return on investment made as a result of the provisions in the Bill. We have heard many times about the scale and scope of the challenge that we are facing with respect to public sector fraud. Amendment 131 seeks to bring us back to the fundamental principle that our purpose should be the recovery of public money in a way that genuinely benefits the taxpayer.

We have spoken a lot about costs over the past few weeks and today. It is important that we pursue this policy in a way that is cost effective and recovers money in a meaningful and tangible way. This is about being responsible with taxpayers’ money, and we must ensure that we get a return on investment to approach this issue sensibly and pragmatically.

We have agreed pretty unanimously on the principle of returning to the taxpayer money that has been gained fraudulently, but there is no point in pursuing the policy if it does not give us a sufficient return on that investment. In other words, this would set a benchmark for efficacy and cost-effectiveness. If these powers are delivering real value for money, then they would remain. If they are not, then Parliament must revisit them—hence the amendment.

The public rightly expect that the powers we grant to Ministers and departments are not only proportionate but demonstrably effective. They do not want systems that are costly to administer and burdensome to operate and yield little in return, nor should they be expected to accept them. This amendment would simply create a clear feedback mechanism. It asks that the Government show their working and provide an evidence-based justification for retaining powers that intrude on privacy, create obligations for banks and place additional burdens on both government departments and third parties. If the system is working and recovering public money effectively and efficiently, then, as I said earlier, there is no difficulty in meeting that threshold, but if it is not then we should have the courage and accountability to stand back and reassess.

Let us also be clear: the amendment would not automatically repeal the Act in five years’ time. It would allow for its continuation if and only if the system works. It would not constrain the Government’s ambition but demand proof of delivery—and what is wrong with that? At a time of tightening public finances and growing digital scrutiny, it is more important than ever that new powers are not just well intentioned but demonstrably worth while, and this sunset clause would help to ensure that. It would build a clear and measurable standard, and it would respect Parliament’s duty to monitor the impact of the legislation that it enacts. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I shall say a few words despite my earlier promise and add to this moment of harmony. This is an interesting amendment to finish off Committee. I talked earlier about sledgehammers and nuts. I am concerned about civil liberties being constrained by the Bill. There are huge invasions of privacy and things that I worry about in terms of overreach of state power, but we can be assured all the time that this is about protecting public money.

When we describe everything from organised crime to fake charities getting money from the state and so on, understandably, we then think, “Are we trying to balance this out? Is it proportional? Do we have to make compromises on freedoms in order to crack down on it?” I am not yet convinced that that proportionality exists, and I know that we will pursue some of that on Report. What will remain of this Bill are those powers, but I am not convinced that the money accrued back will justify the kind of powers that the Government are giving themselves.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Grand Committee

I conclude by saying that I have taken some time to spell out many details that I am sure the Committee will be reasonably familiar with, but, at the same time, perhaps it is a test for the Minister to give us some full explanations as to the safeguards that they are putting in place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome these amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I appreciated the detail that he went into because it is important that we remember that these direct deduction orders are real instruments of power. I am interested in how they will be used differentially, because I do not want them to be a blunt instrument. Therefore, it is worth remembering and considering those who might be on the receiving end of them.

In an earlier group discussing search and seizure, I had been considering speaking but was in some ways put off, because I thought that the search and seizure measures were only meant for organised criminal gangs. As was pointed out, if that was in the Bill maybe it would be more reassuring. It is difficult to know how many people will be affected by the same powers. We want to differentiate, surely, between the vulnerable and an organised criminal gang. There are those who are technically fraudulent, but it is because they have made a mistake, and so on.

I particularly thought of that because I listened to a vivid documentary recently about bailiffs and people who had got themselves into all sorts of distress and debt, with bailiffs kicking down their doors. I had that caricature in my head, and I do not want that to happen to those people. I am not suggesting the search and seizure measures will lead in that direction, but we should always think: who is on the receiving end of these powers? How did they get into that situation? How does the Bill make a distinction so that we do not, on the one hand, have a one-size-fits-all approach? On the other hand—this is a slight anxiety I have— I do not want us to simply get into a situation where we are saying that, because people are on welfare, they are vulnerable. That is equally a caricature, and I do not think it is helpful for us to see people always in a victim role.

I would be interested—that is why I welcome this group—in making the distinctions and learning how the Minister envisages us making the distinctions between the multitude of people on welfare when these powers, which are quite severe in many instances, are going to be applied. How will that happen? Who makes the decision? I think that is why these amendments are very useful.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased in this instance to express my strong support for Amendments 99D and Amendment 109ZA, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. I have not been quite so firm in my support for others, but Amendment 99D would ensure that, before any deduction is applied to recover debt overpayment, due regard is given to the wider circumstances and vulnerabilities of the liable person. There would be a requirement for this assessment to be documented and available to the claimant on request.

This is a vital safeguard that would place fairness and compassion at the heart of the debt recovery process, ensuring that individuals are not pushed into hardship without a proper understanding of their personal situation. It aligns with my and my party’s commitment to a welfare system that is both effective and humane, recognising that people’s circumstances can be complex—gosh, they certainly can be—and that a one-size-fits-all approach to debt recovery is neither just nor practical.

Amendment 109ZA—we have a wonderful numbering system—would further strengthen these protections by requiring the Minister to consider the additional costs of living with a disability before making a direct deduction order. This would be an essential step in ensuring that disabled people, who often face higher living expenses, are not disproportionately affected by debt recovery measures. Both amendments reflect the principles of proportionality and sensitivity that should underpin all government action in this area. They represent a significant improvement to the Bill’s framework for tackling fraud and error while safeguarding the dignity and well-being of the most vulnerable.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who said she was a bit hesitant on this, I urge the Committee and the Minister to support these amendments, which would ensure that the pursuit of public funds is always balanced with compassion and respect for individual circumstances. At this stage of the Bill, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, these measures need to be introduced so that we can perhaps on Report include them in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

102: Schedule 5, page 104, line 19, leave out “make” and insert “apply to the appropriate court for”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make direct deduction orders and instead provides for direct deduction orders to be made only by a court following an application by the Secretary of State to the court.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 102, I shall speak also to Amendment 122. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for putting his name to these amendments.

These amendments are similar to those that I tabled in an earlier group in relation to Part 1. In this instance, they focus on removing the power of the Secretary of State to make direct deduction orders and instead suggests that DDOs be made only by the relevant court following an application from the Secretary of State.

Throughout Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has helpfully stressed that, when we are having this discussion, particularly in this environment, it is very difficult to imagine a Minister other than the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who I do not think of as a malign person. In this instance, this is not helpful, because as a Committee we must always take a decision based on what we think could happen in future—what powers are being created—and therefore we bring to bear as much as we can the safeguards as a Committee.

I think that we can all agree, and we keep saying this, that it is important to note that the powers are in pursuit of a legitimate aim: here, to reclaim overpayment of money paid to welfare claimants. Following the previous group, we should not say that a welfare claimant, if they have defrauded the state, should be treated with kid gloves—I am not suggesting that. But whenever new state powers over the individual are created, a legitimate aim is not enough to mean that we should not have a more granular probing of the powers that have been created, which is why we as a Committee need to insist that powers are tightly drawn to guard against arbitrariness and limited to what is necessary and proportionate. When the Government award themselves powers, as they do in this part of the Bill, to intrude on the privacy of anyone’s bank account, check on its contents and remove money, there needs to be a strong legal justification. As yet, I am not convinced that we should not make it the job of the courts to best determine and assess when this is appropriate.

In an earlier group, on search and seizure powers, the Minister reassured the Committee that we do not need to worry because this would happen only with court approval. I am suggesting that we might need court approval here. The DWP characterises DDOs as a power of last resort, which can be exercised only when the Secretary of State has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to settle the debt and notified them of the possible use of the powers. I felt that the Minister’s helpful explanation earlier really brought this to life.

On the other hand, there is no definition in the Bill of what, for example, a reasonable opportunity threshold might be. Ironically, one of the safeguards presented by the DWP is a check on affordability, in terms of fairness. This takes the form of account information notices. I know that we will have a number of amendments on that issue, but I want to dwell on this now, because these safeguards are one of the most egregious aspects of the Bill. To consider whether the debtor can afford to have funds deducted before the Secretary of State makes a DDO, page 105 of the Bill tells us that

“the Secretary of State must obtain and consider bank statements for the account covering a period of at least three months”.

One requirement of the account information notices is that the bank must not notify the account holder—or anyone associated with them, for that matter. Surely this, as I have mentioned in previous contexts, puts the bank in an invidious position of being compelled to breach any professional confidentiality that it owes its customer, even if its customer is a debtor, based on the word of the Government telling it that the account holder owes the DWP money. Compelling banks to hand over bank statements secretly, however benign the motives in relation to affordability checks—all without any external oversight, such as judicial authority —needs to be probed in terms of its efficacy and ethics, which is what these amendments try to do.

Before issuing a DDO, the Secretary of State must give the debtor and any joint account holder notice of the proposed order and invite them to make representations, as the Minister explained earlier. On the basis of these representations, the Secretary of State will decide whether and on what terms to make the DDO, and may do so only if satisfied from bank statements and representations that the order is fair and that the liable person, the account holder and their dependants will not

“suffer hardship in meeting essential living expenses”.

That sounds so reasonable but, in reality, it hands extraordinary discretion to the Secretary of State, as there is no threshold to determine what constitutes hardship or essential living expenses. I am sure that, if we went around the Room, we would have various versions of what we need to live on and would argue over it. Who decides what is fair in this instance? I suggest that at least having an external court look at this would be more appropriate.

Perhaps we would put such qualms aside, if these powers applied only to overpayments caused by deliberately fraudulent behaviour. I can see why going hard on fraudsters might be popular, but these powers to seize funds directly from bank accounts without judicial scrutiny will also apply to individuals who have been overpaid as a result of making a mistake when filling out one of those notoriously complex claim forms, who have failed to update a change in their circumstances, or who may just be struggling to navigate the system in general. Such errors—that is what they are—account for almost a quarter of overpayments. They include errors caused by the DWP’s own actions, as the carer’s allowance scandal revealed, but it is the likes of unwitting carers who will be on the receiving end of these powers, yet the negligent DWP staff who made the mistakes are nowhere caught by the powers that we are discussing.

I say this not to have a go at the staff, in that instance, but to note, as we have talked about previously, that we do not need a one-size-fits-all situation. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made and it is very important. All sorts of people will be caught up—people making mistakes, vulnerable people and some fraudsters—but they will all be treated the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I apologise; I forgot to answer that. No, it does not. These measures apply to any kind of overpayment but, as I described, they are only matters of last resort. We have to have gone through all the other possibilities and people must simply have failed to engage. So this really will happen only if somebody is absolutely not engaged with us at all. As is the case with deductions from benefits or deductions from earnings, they are available as a tool for overpayments, whether or not they will be used.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lords who spoke on these amendments for appreciating—even if they did not support—the spirit of what they are trying to do. Despite that, I do actually want to do this rather than just wanting the spirit. But I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, feels that it will not work practically. But we have had a slightly contradictory answer there, because they are either absolutely the last resort and will hardly ever be used—in which case they will not clog up the court system, to be fair—or they will be used a lot more, which means that there is all the more reason for them to go through the courts, if they will be used liberally from the point of view of a safeguard. So I did get confused about that.

Some thoughtful points were made. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, usefully probed the Minister—in a way that I was not able to—on exactly when and in what circumstances. These questions about the distinction between error and where the overpayment came from matter in relation to the powers that have been created.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Yes, of course.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt—I never get to say that anymore. I thought it might be helpful for the Committee if I clarified. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, referred to Clause 89; that actually refers to administrative penalties and recovery for non-benefit payments, not for benefit payments. I should have made that clear. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in full flow—please carry on.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is very helpful for these things to be clarified. As noble Lords can see every time we are in Committee, I have so many pieces of paper, so I appreciate that and am not saying that I am on top of all the detail.

However, I think it is important, in the spirit of the way that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was motivated to support these amendments, that this is not just about the detail; there is an important principle here. I really liked the viral film mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because people do care about this Bill and what its impact will be, and we have to be able to answer all the questions as the legislators who are debating it. People know that we are involved in this, and I sometimes feel that it is unclear exactly what will be acquired by all these powers.

The problem with saying that these powers will hardly ever be used is that these powers are going in the statute book, so they can be used. I am not going to talk about bank statements again, but the reason I raised them on this group is because, before a DDO can be introduced, you have to check bank statements through the mechanism of the affordability checks that we will go on to discuss, and that is a breach of privacy. If we are giving the DWP the power to do this, we need to have a check. The way we have done that historically is to rely on the courts to take money. As this is related, I am trying to see whether this could be a useful check to make sure that these powers are not exploited.

We have plenty of time to go, so I think some of us may come back with a version of this amendment—potentially better worded—when we get to Report. It is not just to fly the flag for civil liberties but, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, a need to have trust in the system. If the Bill is to be taken seriously by people who do not just think that it is draconian and who do not do the caricatures that the Minister wants, it must be watertight in its safeguards and protections, as well as in the powers that it creates. Those two things have to live together; otherwise, it will be discredited before it even hits the statute book.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I just want to pick up on something quite interesting that the noble Baroness said, which leads me to ask a question of the Minister. I am not expecting an answer now. It is to do with the capacity or number of cases. I have no idea how many DDO cases could end up going to the courts, but it may be more than the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, thinks. I am just reminded of my experience of the Child Maintenance Service: it looks at those people who we know can pay and who are not paying, and they go all the way to the courts. There are many thousands. I rest my case by saying that there is a danger that the courts could be clogged up, but it would help the Committee to have some idea, perhaps in writing, of the number of cases that would or could go to court as a consequence of these amendments.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Viscount. As he knows from his experience with the Child Maintenance Service, as each form of enforcement comes into view, more and more people simply pay without it being necessary, so a sort of funnel comes down. If we have any information about scale, I would be happy to write.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who has clearly and eloquently outlined the reasons for this amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, tabled, and to which I attached my name. The noble Lord talked about the risk of loss of trust in public authorities. We should also look at the other side of this: the loss of trust in banks. People may have heard the acronym GDPR. People might not know all the ins and outs but they think that anything to do with bank accounts is private stuff. They want to trust that if their information is with the bank, it is not going to be handed out to anyone else. We have a situation whereby, although the situation has improved in recent years, still 2.1% of Britons are unbanked. That figure is significantly higher for the under-25s. It is also higher in some regions and nations; for example, Scotland.

We have to think not just about the impact on attitudes towards the DWP. I thank the Minister for acknowledging in her response to my previous contribution that the department has a long way to go. However, bank statements contain all sorts of information beyond what is relevant to anything the DWP knows about. For example, people may find themselves in a difficult situation after a relationship has broken down, and their bank statement may reveal all kinds of things about their personal life that they really do not want anyone else to see. There may be purchases they consider embarrassing. They do not want anyone else to see them. Getting the whole copy of the bank statement is not going to provide just information relevant to what the DWP is doing or not, or any other income and so on. There is going to be a lot of other material as well. As the Bill is currently written, it is disproportionate, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Very briefly, I absolutely support the amendment. I raised some of my concerns when moving my amendment in the previous group. When I heard that bank statements could be requested, I thought it was not true and I kept having to check it. I thought, “This cannot be right”, because throughout the passage of the Bill we have been assured by the Minister, “Oh, no. We do not want any details. We are only going to have the name. There is no surveillance”. I then thought, “Oh my God, they can get the bank accounts of individuals, allegedly to check whether they have enough money in their bank account, saying that they are doing it only because they are being nice to them”.

I am of the generation who think that if you lose your bank account, there is serious jeopardy. In other words, I would never show my bank accounts around. I am paranoid about anyone seeing my bank accounts. I worry about that sort of thing, although it is not that I have anything to hide—just to note. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, indicated, you can find out from people’s bank accounts what their politics are, their trade union affiliations and their sexual preferences —all sorts of things. On the idea that the DWP will not be looking at that but will just be checking how much money you have, it cannot do that. It is essential that we think twice about this.

These account information notices also apply to joint bank accounts. I know that we are going on to discuss joint accounts in a minute, but that means that those pots of intimate, private, sensitive and granular information held within a bank statement can be revealed about individuals who are not on benefits, who are not debtors, who are not involved at all—they simply share a joint account. I would like this removed from the Bill. It is too scary.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling this amendment. I recognise the spirit in which this proposal is made—a desire to ensure that the use of direct deduction powers is subject to proper scrutiny and does not override individual rights without appropriate justification.

However, I must express some serious reservations about the effect that this amendment would have. By removing the ability of the DWP to request relevant bank statement information from financial institutions before issuing a DDO, we risk undermining the very evidential foundation that should underpin the use of this power in the first place. If we are to give Ministers and their departments powers to recover money owed to the public purse—a legitimate policy objective that is supported on all sides of this Committee—we must also ensure that those powers are exercised responsibly and on the basis of proper evidence. Access to account information, under strictly controlled conditions, is part of what makes that possible. Without it, the risk is not simply inefficiency or delay. The greater danger is that deduction decisions could be made with incomplete or inaccurate information, leading to inappropriate enforcement action or simply to missed opportunities to recover legitimately owed funds. Neither outcome would serve the interests of fairness, nor would they deliver good value for public money.

We have heard throughout Committee about the importance of a system that is not only robust but proportionate and just. I entirely agree—as our amendments and interventions thus far have made clear. However, for a system to be proportionate, it must be informed, which requires access to evidence. I reiterate the concerns that we raised on these Benches at Second Reading. Schedule 3B (1)(2) (b)(i) makes it clear that an eligibility verification notice, which would serve to identify or help to identify fraud, can be applied only to the bank account

“into which a specified relevant benefit has been paid”.

As my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott set out at Second Reading, we are concerned that this creates a substantial loophole which could be exploited by fraudsters who are, as the government amendments have suggested, able to find out whether they are being pursued by the DWP through an information request. This is a real issue. It seems a likely and obvious outcome that such a person could move money between the relevant account and another, held with different bank, to avoid scrutiny.

We submit that for this to be an enforcement regime, there cannot be any loopholes or workarounds which may permit a fraudster to hang on to the money that they have stolen from the taxpayer. As we stated at Second Reading, the Bill as set out suggests that the Government will be tied up in a legal bind, ensuring in statute that they cannot verify or ultimately pursue the recovery of funds that are not held within the account specified. However, with the right safeguards and with responsible communication of information, there is surely a way in which this regime can be constructed that is responsible and fit for purpose.

We believe that the Government must expand their capacity and ability to access further bank accounts held in the name of the relevant person to prevent them simply opening another account and moving money around, which, as the Bill is currently drafted, seems to be a clear and easy way for them to avoid both proper scrutiny and will prevent the money being recovered. Perhaps the Minister will say whether parallels can be drawn with the current system set out between HMRC and the banks for the recovery of tax resulting either from overpayments or tax fraud, which I am sure she will say works. That may be helpful.

Finally, I want to respond briefly to the concerns raised about whether these provisions amount to a snoopers’ charter—a charge that has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill. It is right that we scrutinise the scope of these powers carefully, but it is also important to be clear about what the Bill does and does not do. In our view, the Bill sets out defined and limited circumstances under which verification measures may be used. It cannot be doubted that an informed and fair decision on deduction orders can be reached only if it is grounded in accurate and up-to-date information. I believe that it is for the Government to make it absolutely clear in Committee how these safeguards on process will function in practice and how transparency and accountability will be maintained. I understand the sensitivities involved in accessing bank data. That is why these safeguards and oversight mechanisms are important.

With that, I hope that noble Lords will reflect on whether the amendment achieves that balance, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the very valid concerns that it speaks to can be addressed.