Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Kramer

Report stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 89, 91, 101 and 102; I start with Amendments 89 and 91. I tabled these amendments because it has been clear that, despite all my attempts to reassure noble Lords at earlier stages, concerns continue to be raised as though DWP’s new recovery powers could be applied to debtors who are in receipt of benefits. Indeed, I think that may be the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the explanatory statement on her Amendment 92 in this group relates to the use of these powers on benefit claimants. To be clear, this is not the case.

The DWP’s new debt recovery measures can be applied only to debtors who are no longer receiving DWP benefits and where we cannot recover from PAYE. However, to further reassure noble Lords and everybody else, we are making it even clearer in the legislation, through new Section 80AA, that the new powers cannot be applied to those receiving benefits from my department. This provides further clarification that a direct deduction order or immediate disqualification from driving order must always be suspended or revoked if the debtor subsequently receives a benefit payment from the DWP while that order is ongoing. I hope that provides further assurance to the House.

Amendment 101 is a procedural amendment regarding the technical mechanisms for DWP to make applications to the court for disqualification orders. The Bill already allows DWP to make an application to the magistrates’ court for a suspended or immediate DWP disqualification order. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a regulation-making power enabling DWP to set out at a later stage any practical steps necessary for those applications to be made and considered. This engages commonplace procedure rules, dealing with practical matters to ensure cases are progressed fairly and efficiently for all parties involved, such as the type of form used or how notices and orders are served on parties.

Amendment 102 is a technical amendment which ensures that the term “processing” is correctly understood in new Section 80D, which establishes the DWP debt code of practice. It is a small change to provide clarity by linking the term “processing” to the definition already set out in Section 3(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This helps avoid any ambiguity in interpretation and ensures consistency with existing data protection legislation.

None of these government amendments changes the existing policy intent for how the powers will be used or the safeguards that are set out in the Bill. These will continue to be powers of last resort, to be used only after DWP has made all reasonable attempts to negotiate an affordable and sustainable repayment plan. These amendments support the policy intent and delivery of the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to accept them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I laid Amendment 92 in the same spirit as the amendments that I laid in an earlier group. The part of paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 that I find most difficult is a subset of the requirement for banks to provide information. The overarching requirement instructs banks to hand over to the Government, on request, three months of account statements for them to examine. The schedule says that the information must be used only to help determine whether or not to make a deduction under the Bill. I was trying to find out from the Minister what assurances there are that the use will be that narrow. It may be that I have misread it, but I cannot see any form of transparency or accountability that would provide that kind of assurance. It all seems to be completely internal to the DWP. My first question to the Minister is therefore this: how will the scheme verify that the information is not used for other purposes, because detailed account statements undoubtedly have information that could interest all kinds of people? Most importantly, will that information be destroyed after an investigation is closed?

The part of paragraph 3 that exercised me the most, in the original language of the Bill that came from the Commons, is that which prohibited banks from ever notifying the account holder that their information has been handed over to the state and for what purpose. To the Minister’s credit, that now seems to have been amended to say that the account holder can be told after three months. I am unclear whether that is an automatic notification, notification at the bank’s choice, or notification that requires a request from the account holder. To me, this matters, because I suspect that transparency is the only way to ensure that the information in the account is not used for purposes other than those stated in the Bill.

I am generally exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea that the original version basically required a sort of covert process, in which the information held on an individual by the state was not disclosed to that individual. The Minister has often suggested that the monitoring of accounts is to start a dialogue to see if a person has made a mistake in overclaiming rather than committing fraud. If somebody is not told that their information has been taken, read through, examined and dealt with in detail, I cannot see how they can possibly enter into a constructive discussion to explain what is happening.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to an underlying principle. Jonathan Fisher KC has published part 1 of an independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, which was commissioned by the Government. I want to quote his words on transparency, because it seems that transparency was not built into the original Bill and is still limited in the revised version. He said that:

“A modern disclosure regime must require the prosecution”—


he is talking about the courts—

“to be honest concerning the reasonable lines of inquiry that have been pursued and how investigative material has been gathered, handled, and interrogated”.

I would very much like to see those principles embedded in this part of the Bill. I think we need assurances from the Minister that if we cannot find the language then they will in practice be embedded in this part of the Bill, because transparency is fundamental.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled by the Government contain a mixture of substantive safeguards and some technical improvements designed to tidy up and clarify the Bill.

The main amendment, government Amendment 91, introduces further restrictions and procedural safeguards around the use of the new recovery methods created by Schedules 5 and 6. It requires that liable persons are properly notified and given an opportunity to settle their liability before enforcement action is taken, and that alternative routes of recovery, such as deductions from earnings or benefits, are considered before more intrusive powers are used. These are sensible and welcome provisions that strengthen procedural fairness and ensure that the new powers are exercised proportionately.

We do, however, note that these changes have come rather late in the passage of the Bill. They are substantive clarifications, going to the heart of how these powers will operate in practice. However, I listened to the explanations from the Minister on an earlier point I made about this and I now understand her position—while not necessarily agreeing with it, I understand it.

The group includes two largely technical amendments. The first, to Schedule 6, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to applications to or appeals from magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, ensuring clarity and consistency in procedure. The second, to Clause 94, aligns the Bill with the Data Protection Act 2018 by confirming that “processing” has the same meaning as in the Act. This is a straight- forward but important clarification. It is my view that these amendments strengthen the fairness and clarity of the Bill, ensuring that it operates in a way that is proportionate, consistent and aligned with existing law. We therefore support them.

On Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, she may not be surprised that we do not support this amendment. It would remove a key part of the machinery that underpins the operation of this Bill—specifically, the ability of the Department for Work and Pensions to obtain limited, relevant bank information to determine whether a direct deduction order should be made. I realise that this chimes with the noble Baroness’s earlier Amendment 45A, so I will not repeat the comments I made then, save to say that this is a considerable change and would strike at the heart of the framework that enables the recovery of money lost to fraud and error.

The Government must have the legal capacity to verify whether an individual is eligible for the payments they are receiving and whether further action is required to prevent overpayment or recover funds that are owed to the state and, by extension, to the taxpayer. If a person receives money from the state, the state has both the right and the duty to ensure that this money is not being misused—and certainly is not ending up in the pockets of fraudsters or criminals. The Minister has already made clear that individuals in receipt of benefits will be informed that the Government may access certain account information for the purposes of investigating suspected fraud or error.

We are satisfied with the Government’s assurance that the information obtained under these provisions will be high level, proportionate and strictly limited to what is necessary for the purpose of recovering money lost to fraud and overpayment. Far from being excessive, the powers set out in this part of the schedule are a necessary and measured tool to protect public funds. For those reasons, we oppose Amendment 92.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Kramer

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that if one of us was in Santorini and the other one was here tabling amendments, I may have got the raw end of the deal—although it is possible that my noble friend’s husband might not agree with that.

The government amendments in this group contain a series of further safeguards for individuals who are subject to the new debt recovery powers in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, specifically in relation to direct deduction orders to recover from bank accounts and deductions from earnings orders to deduct from PAYE salaries in Part 1. Before I address them, I add my thanks to noble Lords from around the House for what has been a constructive consideration of the Bill so far. I hope that these government amendments will help to add to that sentiment.

Government Amendments 8, 9, 93 and 94 seek to clarify the obligations of financial institutions not to disclose that they have received an information notice under the new power enabling direct deduction orders—DDOs. Under the debt recovery provisions in Parts 1 and 2, financial institutions are prohibited from informing account holders that the PSFA or the DWP has requested account information. This is to militate against attempts to avoid the powers—for example, by moving money out of the account before a DDO is issued.

These amendments clarify that the prohibition ends three months after the notice is given to the bank, or sooner if a pre-deduction notice is subsequently given. Three months is long enough for the DWP or the PSFA to have assessed a debtor’s ability to repay and the affordability of repayments, and to issue a first notice as appropriate. These amendments remove any doubt as to how long the prohibition lasts, ensuring the requirement is proportionate and not overly burdensome.

It is only during the time that account information is being considered that the prohibition applies. Once the information has been properly assessed and any pre-deduction notice given to the bank, account holders can be told that the information was requested. Where a DDO is proposed, the account holder, and a joint account holder if applicable, will be notified in writing by the PSFA or the DWP of their right to make representations regarding the proposed deductions before any are taken.

Government Amendments 12, 13, 98 and 100 are in response to our further engagement with the financial services sector. They seek to clarify the responsibilities of the PSFA, the DWP and financial institutions with specific regard to legal deputies who might be managing the affairs of a debtor subject to a DDO. Since Committee, we have continued to benefit from the insight provided by the financial services sector, and we want to provide as much clarity as possible on respective roles and responsibilities. These amendments will help ensure that the implementation of these measures is straightforward and that the Government can recoup money lost to fraud and error in an efficient and effective manner. Government Amendments 12 and 13 simplify the drafting of Clause 37 and remove redundant provisions. Amendments 97 and 98 do the same thing for Schedule 5.

Government Amendments 14 and 99 are consequential to Amendments 11 and 96, limiting the suspension of DDOs, which I will come to in a moment. They mean that, where an order has been suspended for two years and is revoked, the PSFA and the DWP will now have an obligation to inform a deputy, if there is one in place.

Government Amendments 15 and 100 create a requirement for a bank to provide the PSFA and the DWP with the details of any deputy acting on behalf of an account holder, where these are known to the bank, when certain notices or orders are issued to them. This was implicit before but, at the request of the banks, we are making it explicit that this includes the name and address of the deputy.

Collectively, these amendments are important to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear for the minority of cases where there is a legal deputy in place when the PSFA or the DWP uses DDOs.

Government Amendments 11, 18, 96 and 99 address an issue raised at Second Reading by lots of noble Lords. I am happy to be able to respond to those comments here. The Government are committed to being fair and transparent in the use of these new powers, and it is completely reasonable that, where an individual has an order in place and it is suspended, it should not be suspended indefinitely. We are therefore introducing new provisions under government Amendments 11, 18, 96 and 99 to remove that uncertainty for those individuals so that they know exactly where they stand and to ensure that an order cannot be restarted if the suspension goes on for more than two years. I am grateful to noble Lords for having raised this.

It was never the Government’s intention for a suspension to be indefinite, but it is right to offer greater clarity and certainty in the law itself. The PSFA or the DWP will inform debtors of any changes to their payment arrangements. If an order is suspended, the debtor will be notified. In cases where a DDO is revoked, both the account holder and the relevant bank will receive written confirmation from the PSFA or the DWP. That reflects our continued commitment to supporting individuals in managing their debt and introduces important safeguards to ensure transparency and fairness.

I turn to the final government amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 95. I again thank those in the financial services sector who have worked closely with us in the development of this Bill. We are committed to working collaboratively with the sector to ensure that the Bill enables banks to meet their legislative obligations while minimising burdens where possible.

The cost of meeting obligations under the Bill has been an area of interest to the House, and noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates that those helping to enforce the law must be supported. I agree with them on this. Therefore, these government amendments remove from Clause 26 and Schedule 5 the requirements on financial institutions to prevent account holders closing their accounts upon receipt of a pre-deduction notice or DDO from the PSFA or the DWP.

The original policy intent was to reduce opportunities for debtors to frustrate the DDO process, and that remains our objective. However, this requirement would not stop debtors who are persistent in evading repayment simply redirecting their funds to another account. We know from our engagement with the financial sector that complying with the requirement to prevent account closures risks creating a significant burden for some banks.

We reflected on that feedback and the fact that both parts of the Bill already contain further safeguards against bad actors who might wish to take action to frustrate a DDO. In Part 1, Clause 27 places a restriction on the account holder not to do anything that might frustrate the effect of the pre-deduction notice or the order. If they do, they become liable to pay a civil penalty. In Part 2, Schedule 6 contains provisions for the DWP to apply to the court for a suspended disqualification from driving order in the most serious cases where, for example, someone persistently fails to pay by frustrating a DDO.

Removing the requirement for financial institutions to prevent account closure upon receipt of a pre-deduction notice or DDO avoids placing new, costly burdens on some banks while still enabling the DWP and the PSFA to address effectively the small number of debtors who deliberately and persistently evade repaying taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously we are pleased to see these amendments. We want to look much more closely to understand how far they go to meet some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Palmer earlier in the process of the Bill. I have an amendment in a future group that reflects our deep concern, particularly at the absence of transparency. The very thought that the original legislation essentially meant that people would have no idea that account statements had been handed over to the investigators—not only during the period when the investigation might be active but they would be permanently kept uninformed that their information had been handed over—felt to us like a complete breach of the rights of the individual, fundamentally breaking the bond of trust between a banking institution and its account holders.

We will want to look closely at these amendments and their implications. We may return to this issue at a later stage, but at this point we are glad that the Government are taking steps to deal with some of the features that most concerned us.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Kramer

2nd reading
Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s thoughtful and decidedly not-at-all dull debate. Committee will be some fun indeed. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, whom I welcome to the spreadsheet fan club. Frankly, I could have done with one of her spreadsheets to keep track of all the questions that I have been asked today. In the absence of that I am bound to miss some, for which I apologise in advance, but I will do my best. It is good to have her among our number, and I look forward to hearing more from her in future.

Perhaps we should start briefly with the challenge that the Bill is designed to address. As my noble friend Lady Anderson made clear at the start, public fraud is simply not acceptable—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, fraud is not acceptable generally, but public sector fraud is also not acceptable. Fraud does not become a victimless crime because it is directed at the state: it will cheat the public purse of money that could be spent on public services, which could help this Government deliver an NHS fit for the future or invest in our children to give them the best start in life.

Listening to some of the examples given by my noble friends Lord Rook and Lady Alexander, it is so shocking that, during Covid, when people and charities were out there breaking their backs trying to serve people who were in desperate need, others were out there lining their pockets. It is a disgrace. It was very moving to hear from my noble friend Lady Alexander about what is happening when people are doing all that they have had to do in the British Council to pay that back when others do not want to pay back the money that they should be paying back to the state. That cannot be right.

I also think that fraud in our social security system is damaging in a different way, whether it is undertaken by individuals or organised criminals. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked what the breakdown of that was. I can tell her that, in 2023-24, of the £7.3 billion lost in fraud in social security, 6% was taken by organised gangs and the rest was taken by individuals.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, is that the number of cases that were identified because there was enough evidence and people were arrested, or does she believe that that is an estimate of the total amount of organised fraud in the system?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

It is a percentage of the amount of fraud that was recognised. Clearly, we do not have figures for the amount of fraud of any kind that has not been identified or recognised. That was the figure for the amount we have on our books as organised fraud.

The reality is that, whether it is done by organised criminals or by individuals, this is not okay. It is not fair to taxpayers who fund social security, nor to the vast majority of people who claim only the benefits to which they are entitled. In my job, when money is as tight as it is now, I want every penny available for social security to go to the people who need it most.

This Government are determined to tackle the issue head-on with a Bill that will provide the right tools to protect public money and fight modern fraud, coupled with the right safeguards. The Bill is tough on those who commit fraud against our public services or our welfare state. In doing so, it gives reassurance to taxpayers. One of the side effects is that it will be helpful to DWP claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping to spot errors earlier so they can avoid getting into lots of debt.

I thought the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, about reciprocity was there. If people do not have confidence in our welfare state and the underpinning mutual shared obligations, that challenges our ability to maintain confidence and carry on supporting people in the future. We need to get this right, but we do not need to demonise people to do that. We just need to make it clear that people should get what they are entitled to, and, if they are not getting that, we should address it.

We believe this Bill strikes the right balance, giving the Government new powers proportionate to the problem we are tackling while ensuring that those powers are wrapped around with effective safeguards and protections to give confidence to Parliament and the country. Having said that, and having listened to the debate, I recognise that it is just possible that not everybody agrees with us—or, at least, not yet. We have some way to go. I have every confidence that, once I have fully explained this, there will be unanimity across the House—or near-unanimity at least, being a realist.

Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that there are a number of challenges. First, I offer a couple of truisms. There is no silver bullet to fraud. If there were one single thing to do, the previous Government would have tackled this, or some other Government would have done it. Tackling fraud is an accretion of a series of small decisions which, between them, add up to make a difference. Therefore, this Bill does what it does and does not do other things: it does not tackle bank robbers or tax evasion. It is a contribution, and I think it is an appropriate one.

Secondly, we have to be a bit careful that the best is not the enemy of the good. What is in front of us is action that this Government will take that has not been done before, and I commend it to the House. The challenges that we have seem to come in three broad categories: we are not going far enough, we are going too far, or there are some challenges in the way that we are doing this. I will briefly look at each in turn.

I start with the challenges that we are not going far enough, which have come from a number of noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I have great respect for one another, but I say very gently that some of the critiques she has made of the Bill strike me as a little ironic, given that the last Government were in for 14 years and had all that time to take action. What did we get? We got one predecessor of one of these measures, which was put in at the fag end of the last Government and dropped into the other place after Committee, with none of the information that the noble Baroness is demanding from me—nothing at all, not even a requirement to produce a code of practice, never mind actually producing one, and absolutely none of the safeguards or protections. Now she is in opposition, I fully respect that it is the job of the Opposition to demand things of the Government, and she does a fine job of doing that. She also will not mind if, in turn, I occasionally throw back at her what her own Government failed to do. In this area, I think we are doing rather better.

Having got that off my chest, let us move on. It is worth saying that this Government are actually doing something. We committed to the biggest-ever savings package on fraud, error and debt at the Autumn Budget. Along with the Spring Statement, DWP fraud and error measures are estimated to achieve £9.6 billion of savings by 2029-30, of which up to £1.5 billion will be generated by this Bill. So this Bill is not all that we are doing, but it is an important thing that we are doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked about cost. In the end, the costs of DWP working through these measures will be dependent on the munificence of the Treasury at the spending review, which I am not allowed to pre-empt. The impact assessment sets out our estimate and shows that around four times the benefit of every pound of our departmental spending will come back on scored measures to 2029-30.

On not doing enough, the noble Baroness asked about “sickfluencers”. She is right—it is the view of this department that we have the powers to deal with these crimes at the moment. We think the Bill will help the PSFA to do that at the same time. But, if she has ideas about other ways in which that could happen, I look forward to hearing them, along with her many other ideas for tackling fraud, which I have no doubt Committee will give us every opportunity to discuss.

While I am on the point, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Stedman-Scott raised the question of whistleblowing. We absolutely agree; we want people to pass on information about fraudsters who are taking from our public services. We are open to keep looking at the best way to do that. We are working with partners such as Action Fraud to make it simple and easy for the public.

In the case of DWP, benefit fraud can be reported by the public online, by phone or by post—and, trust me, it is. But also, DWP staff have clear channels to report. On top of that, the PSFA will look into the possibility of being listed by the Department for Business and Trade as a body with which individuals can raise concerns around public sector fraud. That will help on that side.

While we are on the PSFA, concerns were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others about whether it is doing enough and about the scale. The PSFA’s enforcement unit is relatively new in what it does. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was a little a little bit harsh on test and learn. When the enforcement unit is as new as it is and will only with the passage of the Bill get the powers it needs to do any of these things, surely testing and learning is the right thing to do. If it can demonstrate clearly that results come from that, the possibility for scaling will be significant. I promise I am not making any assumptions of the Treasury.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked whether the Government audit the work of the PSFA and whether the powers in the Bill will add anything. The PSFA publishes annual reports and has benefits audited by the Government Internal Audit Agency. Examples were given in my noble friend’s opening speech of where the PSFA currently cannot make the desired progress because it has not got the powers it needs. The Bill will give them to it.

That is, briefly, the case for not going far enough. Let us now do the going too far case. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to a degree, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are concerned about possible infringements on the right to privacy or other aspects of the reach of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for acknowledging the improvements made by the Bill. I raised a number of reservations when the last Government introduced their third-party data measure, because I felt that the powers were simply not proportionate and that there were not enough safeguards around them.

While I am here, I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that the fact that that we provide safeguards does not mean the powers are wrong. That is what safeguards are for. There are safeguards in all aspects of life. I will come back to that. It means that we want to be transparent and show people that powers the state is taking are used appropriately. That is what they are for. The noble Lord explained the limitations.

We are now limiting the benefits in scope. For all the measures there will be clear limits about what information can be requested, for what purpose, and how the PSFA and DWP will use it. That is all new, and the Bill introduces considerable oversight and reporting requirements.

I believe the Bill strikes the right balance and, in answer to my noble friend Lord Sikka, I am confident that it is complying with the Government’s duties under the ECHR. The Government’s detailed analysis on compatibility is set out in the published ECHR memorandum.

I need to take on a couple of noble Lords who have suggested that this is a sort of broad trawling expedition. It has been described as DWP going out there and trying to have access to everybody’s bank accounts—suspicion-snooping. That is a simple misunderstanding of the nature of the powers. Let me try to explain why. DWP will not be given access to people’s bank accounts by this measure, which is about banks being asked to examine their own data, which they already have and can already look at. They have been asked to provide DWP with the minimum amount of information necessary to highlight whether there is a possibility that someone may not be meeting a specific eligibility rule for a specific benefit. At the point the information is shared with DWP, no one is suspected of having done anything wrong. The presumption of innocence is still there.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Kramer

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I suspect that everyone in this House has been plagued by the various attempts by the claims industry to get us to pass over all kinds of personal details. That worries me. Anecdotally, I have heard reports of people who responded positively to one of these messages and handed over their credit card details. They then found themselves being charged without realising that they were getting themselves into that situation. We have talked to various institutions, many of which say that half the claims presented to them are from people who have never had any relationship with them whatever. It was entirely a fishing expedition. At a time when we want our banks to focus on appropriate lending to individuals and small businesses, which they are all struggling to do effectively, to have the complete distraction and cost associated with keeping this abusive industry afloat is surely unacceptable to all of us.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I support in particular the comment made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy at the end of his contribution. He asked the Minister whether he would meet with my noble friend and other interested Members to consider if not this then what other action can and should be taken. I think that the House would be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.

It seems quite obvious that as a market the CMC sector simply is not working. Not only are significant numbers of people being pressured essentially into doing things which they do not want to do, but there appears to be no price competition in the market at all. All the evidence shows that consumers are just as likely to use a claims management company which charges 40% as one that charges 15% of any money that they might get back. Many simply are not aware that they could do it for themselves for free by going directly to the ombudsman.

If the Minister is not minded to go in that direction, will he tell the House two things? First, what would the Government be able to do very soon that would have a significant impact on targeting in particular the minority of claims management companies that are behaving very badly? Secondly, will he at least agree to meet interested Peers to discuss that matter very soon?