Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and others, which would bring the test for recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with Regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006.

At present, the Department for Work and Pensions is empowered to recover universal credit overpayments even when they result from its own mistakes—a policy introduced with the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This approach marks a significant departure from the previous position on legacy benefits, where overpayments arising from official error could be recovered only if the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. The current system places an unfair burden on claimants, many of whom have no way of knowing that an error has occurred yet are still liable for repayment. I am grateful for the legal expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on this, showing that it is a complicated matter, with many legal precedents that I trust the Minister will take into account.

The evidence we have shows that the recovery of official-error overpayments can have severe financial and psychological impacts, with some individuals facing destitution as a result of sudden deductions from their benefits. The amendment would restore a vital safeguard by ensuring that only those overpayments that a claimant could reasonably have been expected to notice are recoverable, aligning universal credit with the principles of fairness and justice that underlie our social security system. This change would not prevent the recovery of overpayments where there has been claimant error or fraud but would, I hope, protect honest claimants from being penalised for mistakes entirely out of their control.

Many people do not look too closely at the moneys that come into their bank or Post Office account. They receive it and they think it is what they should receive. Sometimes it is not enough and sometimes, as we are discussing here, it might be too much. But most people take it and use it. We used to have this problem with council house rents, where the benefits were paid to the householder and they sometimes had to make a choice: did they buy bread and food or pay the rent? They used it for bread and food and did not have the money for rent. The rents started to be paid direct to the local authority or housing association, in order to mitigate that. It tends to prove the fact that people do not notice: they take what is needed and receive it. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, to ensure that the system is both compassionate and just. I commend it to the Committee.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking for the first time today, I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the arrival of his grandchild; I think he had indicated that he or she had arrived. It is interesting to reflect that when we started off on day one of Committee there was either a wedding or a honeymoon or both— I forget—and this allows me to declare a small interest of my own, which is that my daughter is due to give birth in two weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly address Amendment 124A, which seeks

“to secure fair administrative processes and meaningful human oversight”—

that is the point—

“for benefits recipients when … automated systems”

are used for decision-making. We have seen those problems with the Post Office and it happens all over.

The increasing adoption of algorithmic and automated decision-making within the public sector offers clear benefits in efficiency and consistency, but it also introduces significant risks, particularly around transparency, bias and the potential for unfair outcomes.

The Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill—that is a mouthful, is not it?—aims to regulate the use of these technologies, requiring impact assessments and transparency standards to ensure that decisions affecting individuals are accountable and subject to appropriate scrutiny. Amendment 124A aligns with those objectives by emphasising the need, as the noble Baroness said, for “human oversight”, especially where decisions have substantial effects on people’s lives.

It is essential that, when we embrace innovative technologies, we do not lose sight of the fundamental principles of fairness and accountability in public administration. Automated systems may be deployed in a way that mitigates risks to individuals and society and provides clear avenues for challenge and redress when errors occur. This amendment reinforces the importance of maintaining human involvement in critical decision-making processes, and ensuring that the rights of benefit recipients are protected and that public confidence in these systems is upheld. By supporting such measures, we can harness the advantages of automation while safeguarding against unintended consequences. I support this amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, there is a rather gloomy atmosphere here, but I am not quite sure why. My remarks will be relatively short. I find myself in a very unusual position—namely, I offer strong support for Amendment 124A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I do so not only because it incorporates vital safeguards but because it speaks to a principle that these Benches have highlighted and pressed for throughout Committee: that powerful tools must be matched by proper protections. I think we all agree with that.

This amendment could not be timelier. The use of artificial intelligence and automated systems is rapidly expanding across Whitehall, with departments increasingly deploying these tools to assist them in undertaking administrative tasks. There are clear benefits to this: efficiency, consistency and the ability to process large volumes of data quickly. AI can be a force multiplier. It can relieve overstretched teams and streamline basic tasks—I saw that when I was in post in the department—but it can never be a substitute for fair and human decision-making where individuals’ rights, entitlements and welfare are concerned.

The temptation to lean too heavily on automation is very real, particularly in areas such as social security where volumes are high and budgets are stretched. We have sought to highlight several times to the Government the additional workload and expense that we believe the provisions in this Bill will introduce for the department. Once we incorporate the need to consider additional needs, disabilities and those at risk of coercion—important safeguards that noble Lords across the Committee have supported—we start to face a massive workload. It is feasible, in light of this, that AI will increasingly be incorporated as part of this process, but we must ensure that this temptation is tempered by caution, principle and foresight. This amendment does just that; it makes clear that automation can assist, but not replace, the human judgment at the heart of a fair welfare system. Let there be light.

We are not legislating simply for this year, or even this Parliament. We are legislating for a system that must hold up under future Governments, under future pressures and in a future where Al capabilities are likely to expand even further. In just the past couple of years, we have all seen how dramatically these technologies have entered into our lives, often with little warning and even less scrutiny. The safeguards that we write into this Bill now are therefore not merely reactive, they are pre-emptive, and they are essential, a fact that groups such as JUSTICE have recognised and highlighted to us. That is why we have tabled our amendment with the same intent and near-identical wording. It is a proposal that we support wholeheartedly, and I commend the noble Baroness for bringing it forward at this stage.

The amendment would require four simple, yet fundamental things: first, that there is meaningful human involvement in any decision-making process that includes an automated element; secondly, that the individual affected receives an individual explanation, including how automation impacted their case; thirdly, that they are given a clear opportunity to make representations; and, fourthly, that they are provided with accessible information on how to challenge the decision. These are not high bars; they are the basic hallmarks of a just and humane administrative process.

There are also some important questions around accountability here. If there are no controls in the Bill on how AI is used, there is nothing, it seems to me, that would stop the department introducing this further as a matter of operational efficiency. However, this would have massive implications for the review process, which we have rightly discussed at length during Committee. If a decision is even partially informed by AI, who is held accountable? Could the civil servant in question blame AI instead of taking responsibility?

These are serious questions, and without proper safeguards in the Bill, we have no assurance from the Government that we could not, in the very near future, have a situation in which a person is attempting to review a case in which a mistake was made where the fault lies at the feet of a computer program, to put it bluntly. If we have clear human involvement in this process—guaranteed, not just promised—at least there is a person included in determining the final decision who can be held to account. This is a vital safeguard upon which the entire review mechanism would rest.

I can anticipate the response from the Minister: she will say that a human will always be at the end of a decision. However, it is not future-proofed, and I urge her to reflect on the long-term value of this amendment and to recognise that it would strengthen the Bill not only for today, but for the years to come. If the Minister can demonstrate to the Committee that these concerns will be protected against not only now, but in perpetuity—which is, of course, the effect of legislation when passed—I would be most grateful. However, from my perspective, I fear the Minister would struggle to meet this challenge because of how the Bill is drafted. I therefore believe there would be real value in the Government adopting this amendment to make sure that they, and the people they serve, are protected not only now, but into the future.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as we consider Amendments 92 and 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on his behalf, it is important to reflect on the balance between effective fraud prevention and the safeguarding of individual rights. Amendment 92 proposes that investigators’ powers of entry, search and seizure should be exercised only when accompanied by an authorised member of the police force. This approach could provide an additional layer of oversight and reassurance to the public, but it may also introduce operational complexities that could affect the speed and efficiency of investigations into public sector fraud.

Similarly, Amendment 93 seeks to require court authorisation before the Secretary of State can appoint authorised investigators. This would introduce judicial oversight, which is a well-established safeguard in many areas of law enforcement, and it could help to prevent the potential misuse of investigatory powers. But it may also add—as I said before—procedural steps that could delay urgent investigations, possibly hindering the recovery of stolen public funds, which is what this debate is all about.

Both amendments raise important questions about proportionality and accountability. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues and the Minister on how best to achieve the right balance in this legislation, and I await their contributions.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I also wish to be brief and will cut down my notes, but this is a good opportunity to raise a number of points. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has spoken to Amendments 92 and 93, as supported, or added to, by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

I share the principle that underpins Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka—that the powers of entry, search and seizure provided for in Clause 76 must be exercised responsibly and proportionately, with proper regard for the rights of individuals. However, my main point here is that, while the amendment aims to provide a safeguard by requiring investigators to be accompanied by a police officer when exercising these powers, I suggest that we need to balance that safeguard with a degree of practicality. If the use of these powers is deemed serious enough to require a police presence, one might reasonably ask an obvious question: why would the police not simply carry out the action themselves, under existing powers—I think that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made—rather than acting in an accompanying or supporting role? If these powers are to be used more routinely—for example, to support the investigation of lower-level but still costly fraud—do we risk placing a significant administrative and resource burden on our already overstretched police forces? I could say more on this, but I will not.

Amendment 93, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, seeks to insert an additional layer of judicial oversight into the appointment of authorised investigators by requiring that their authorisation is subject to court approval, rather than left solely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Without going into the detail, I support the principle behind this amendment.

I will conclude by asking some questions of the Minister on process, which has been a consistent theme on this side in our previous four days in Committee. I am not expecting answers now; it is really to put down the questions along the themes that I have just spoken to. We have had some verbal reassurance from the Government that these powers will be used against property and not people. I am not quite sure how reasonable force can be applied against property but, more than this, it is clear from the text of the Bill that this is not legally guaranteed. Reasonable force could be wielded against people by DWP officers; I hope that the Government can provide more clarity on the balance of that. Can the Minister confirm that these powers could in fact be used against people, as well as property? That is quite an important point. Again, the argument is about whether the police or the DWP may be required. In addition, can she give us some more information as to why she believes these powers need to be granted to civil servants in the DWP?

I say again that the police are the recognised authority, who have legitimacy, in the eyes of the public, to exercise and apply PACE powers. I feel that the Government have a duty to defend, quite strongly, why they want to grant these sweeping powers to members of a government department such as the DWP. We have a police service for a reason: officers are trained, regulated and experienced in using these powers appropriately. If fraud is suspected, particularly at a serious level, is it not right that it should be investigated by the police and not delegated to civil servants?

My concluding comment is that we should be cautious about expanding investigatory powers without a clear and compelling case. My final question to the Minister is: what justification is there for bypassing the police? That plays into my main question, which is: whither the police and whither the DWP?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as we turn to government Amendments 94 to 97, I wonder, as I always do when there are lots of government amendments to their own Bill, whether enough thought has gone into it in the other place.

I know that these proposals are primarily technical, with the key aim of simplifying the drafting of new Schedule 3ZD to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Government Amendment 96 introduces a single clear prohibition on the seizure or examination of information of legal privilege. This streamlining could help to clarify the legal position for both investigators and those subject to investigation, ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are easier to interpret and apply in practice.

Clarity in legislation is always desirable, especially in complex areas such as fraud investigation, where the rights of individuals and the needs of public authorities must be carefully balanced. At the same time, it is important to consider how these amendments interact with the Bill’s wider objectives of safeguarding public money and equipping authorities with the tools needed to tackle fraud and error effectively. Ensuring that information which is subject to legal privilege is properly protected is a long-standing principle within our legal system. These amendments appear to reaffirm that commitment without substantially altering the Bill’s intent. I have no problem in agreeing with what should have been in the Bill at the beginning.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, my remarks largely chime with those made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The Committee will be relieved to know that this is my shortest speech. I offer some measured support for these amendments. They address the important principle of the protection of legally privileged material, and in a way that simplifies and clarifies the drafting of this part of the Bill.

The right to legal professional privilege is, of course, a cornerstone of our justice system. That principle should be unambiguous in legislation of this kind. These amendments seek to express that safeguard more clearly through a single consolidated position. There is certainly merit in that. A simplified and consolidated statement of the limitation on investigatory powers in respect of privileged material is likely to be easier to apply in practice and could reduce the risk of inadvertent overreach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am proud to support Amendments 102 and 122, which I tabled alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Amendment 102 proposes that the power to make direct deduction orders should rest with the courts following an application from the Secretary of State, rather than allowing the Secretary of State to impose such orders directly. This change would introduce an important layer of judicial oversight, ensuring that deductions from individuals’ bank accounts are made only after careful, independent consideration of the evidence and the circumstances.

Although the Bill includes safeguards such as affordability and vulnerability checks, as enumerated by the Minister, and rights to representation and appeal, placing the final decision in the hands of the court would further strengthen public confidence in the fairness and proportionality of the debt recovery process. Amendment 122 is consequential on this approach, ensuring consistency throughout the Bill. By requiring court approval for direct deduction orders, we uphold the principle that significant intrusions into personal finances should be subject to the highest standards of scrutiny and due process. This is particularly important given the potential for hardship and complexities that can arise in cases involving joint accounts or vulnerable individuals. I hope the Minister can address that when she replies.

These amendments do not seek to undermine the Government’s legitimate efforts to recover public funds lost to fraud or error but rather to ensure that such efforts are always balanced with robust protections for individual rights. I urge fellow noble Lords to support these amendments as a constructive step towards a more transparent and accountable system, and I am very pleased to have signed this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I have a degree of sympathy for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. It touches on a value that I know many of us across this House instinctively support: namely, that powers which interfere with the person’s finances should be subject to proper oversight and scrutiny—in other words, by a court and not by a politician. Let us start with that.

The principle underpinning the amendment is sound. When the state seeks to impose a direct deduction from an individual’s account, that is no small matter. It affects not just policy outcomes but people’s daily lives, and we should never lose sight of that. Much was spoken about that in earlier groups. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have suggested introducing a requirement for the court to authorise such a deduction because it reflects the gravity of that particular action.

However—there is a however—although I support the sentiment, I have reservations about the practicality, and I am afraid that the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have increased my concerns. Requiring every direct deduction order to go through the courts will prove burdensome to the judicial system and may risk making this part of the regime so slow and administratively heavy that it becomes inoperable in practice. That would not only undermine the Government’s legitimate aim of tackling fraud effectively and speedily, but could also result in delays and uncertainty for claimants and public authorities alike. Just to be helpful to the Minister, can she enlighten us on the current state of the backlog in the courts—which is a message she might expect me to give—and how, therefore, Amendment 102, for example, might not be helpful to the process?

I have another question about an appeals process. Everyone, I believe, has the right to an appeal, but how would this work, given the status of the courts? That is a question for the Minister to ponder over. We are, after all, talking about a mechanism intended to recover public money in a targeted and efficient way. If every deduction, regardless of scale or complexity, must first pass through court proceedings, we risk erecting a barrier that stifles the entire process. There must surely be a way of reconciling the desire for oversight with the need for operational efficiency—a challenge that I lay down to the noble Baroness, the Minister.

So, while I cannot support the amendment as currently drafted, I agree that the principle of independent oversight should not be overlooked. There may be better ways of embedding that principle in the system through enhanced safeguards; clearer audit mechanisms; greater efficiency and speed—that is, in expediting the DDOs; and improving transparency around how deduction decisions are made and reviewed.

I recognise this from all who have spoken, and I have listened carefully to all the speeches. I believe that these amendments, and particularly Amendment 102, starts a valuable conversation; even if its solution is not quite the right one, its motivation certainly is. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for these powers to be exercised responsibly but also sensibly so that they can operate effectively, and that they are open to exploring proportionate mechanisms of accountability that simply do not grind the system to a halt, and if so—a very simple question to end on: what could this system be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that, before any direct deduction order is made under this schedule, the Secretary of State must consider the effect of such an order on any person who is a victim of domestic abuse, or whom the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.

While the Bill rightly includes very important safeguards, such as affordability and vulnerability checks, and limits on the amounts that can be deducted to protect debtors from undue hardship, these general measures may not provide sufficient protection for those experiencing or at risk of domestic abuse, whose circumstances are often uniquely precarious and complex. Victims of domestic abuse frequently face financial control and instability, and the imposition of a direct deduction order could inadvertently place them at greater risk, either by exacerbating economic hardship or alerting an abuser to their financial situation. It is therefore essential that the Secretary of State has a specific statutory duty to assess the impact on this particularly vulnerable group before any order is made. By adopting this modest amendment, we would strengthen the Bill’s existing safeguards and ensure that the most vulnerable are not further disadvantaged by well-intentioned recovery mechanisms. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment in the interests of justice, compassion and the protection of those at risk. I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my strong support for Amendment 109, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. It proposes a vital and compassionate safeguard that ensures that, before any direct deduction order is made, proper consideration is given to whether the individual involved is a victim of domestic abuse—or certainly at risk of it.

We know that domestic abuse too often includes economic and financial control. Perpetrators may take over access to bank accounts, manage benefit claims in their partner’s name or use coercion to extract money. For victims in these circumstances, a deduction order made against a joint or controlled account is not just a technical enforcement step but can be catastrophic and expose them to further harm, deepen their financial insecurity and reinforce the very cycle of abuse that they are trying to escape. The amendment puts in place an essential duty that, before such a deduction is imposed, the Secretary of State must ask a basic question: is this person safe? Are they vulnerable specifically to domestic abuse? Could such action cause caused further harm? I am sure the Committee will realise that these comments are not new. This is not about creating loopholes but about making sure that we do not inadvertently punish the very people who most need our protection. If our system is to be just, it must distinguish between those who are deliberately defrauding the system and those who are themselves being defrauded, manipulated or coerced in private and invisible ways.

I fully recognise—others may raise this point—that this kind of information is not always easy to obtain. As we know, domestic abuse is often hidden, and victims may be reluctant or unable to disclose it. But that is not a reason to avoid the responsibility. On the contrary, it is precisely why we must build protective considerations into the decision-making process. So, if a red flag is raised—whether through third-party evidence, existing support services or patterns in the account—the system must be capable of pausing, asking the right and necessary questions and adjusting course. That is surely not an undue burden; it is what we should expect of a responsible, modern enforcement regime.

Of course, I also note that the Government already have duties under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—I expect we will hear this from the Minister—and under the wider Equality Act to consider how their decisions impact vulnerable groups. But this amendment gives practical effect to those duties in the specific context of direct deduction orders. It does not create new rights out of thin air; it reinforces and operationalises obligations that the state already carries.

So I ask the noble Baroness two questions. In the system and process designed, and having reached proof of concept with the banks—at least on two occasions; I refer back to previous comments—who is responsible for recognising these issues in respect of account holders? Is it the banks? To what extent do they know such detail about their account holders? Or is it the DWP? Is it more likely to know of such matters? Obviously, in the discussions leading up to and beyond the decision to give out benefits, such issues surely would have emerged. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on the precise responsibilities here.

Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that the banks would not see the analysis of vulnerability as a key part of their responsibility—that is linked to my previous point—but that their role is simply to raise a red flag with deliberately limited data, as has been outlined, where there is that match of an account holder in receipt of benefits who also has £16,000 or more in an account.

The final question, which chimes with questions asked on perhaps day 4 of Committee, is: how often are such checks carried out by banks, as requested by the DWP? Or—I need to be put right again; forgive me—is the algorithm such that a flag is raised on a 24/7 basis by an algorithm that does a match? Then a report is given to the bank’s responsible person—let us call him the banking manager.

There is a thread running through this debate about how to balance power and protection. Indeed, it is an issue on which noble Lords across the Committee agree; therefore I warmly welcome this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as it provides us with another opportunity to test out the Government and raise our concerns. This amendment is principled, proportionate and practical. I hope the Government will take it seriously, in the spirit it is meant, and reflect carefully on the values it enshrines. I believe it gets to the very essence of what the Bill is about. With that, I look forward to the answers from the Minister.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the spirit and substance of these amendments, which would collectively strengthen the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill by ensuring that our approach to tackling fraud is not only effective but fair and—that word again—proportionate.

Amendment 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, rightly probes how the Secretary of State will prevent undue costs being imposed on banks and seeks to clarify the mechanisms for cost recovery. This, I believe, is an essential safeguard, ensuring that our financial sector partners are not overburdened by compliance costs, which could ultimately impact customers and the wider economy.

Similarly, Amendment 91, which calls for an independent review of the eligibility verification powers with a focus on the proportionality—that word again—of costs incurred by both the department and banks, is a welcome step towards transparency and accountability in the implementation of these new powers.

I am particularly supportive of Amendment 83, which would place the duty of care that financial services providers owe to their customers at the forefront, ensuring that data sharing with the DWP does not override these fundamental responsibilities. This is a crucial point. While we must be resolute in our effort to combat fraud—on which I am sure we all agree—we must not do so at the expense of the trust and the rights of individuals. It is a very fine line to draw.

Amendment 89C from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would remove the risk that the mere existence of an eligibility indicator could trigger unnecessary action against account holders, thereby preventing unintended harm to individuals.

Taken together, these amendments would ensure that the Bill’s powers are exercised with restraint and with full regard to the interests of both institutions and individuals. We must not let it trigger unnecessary actions against account holders under the Proceeds of Crime Act. I support these amendments in their entirety.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 81 and 91 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which seek to introduce proportionate and principled safeguards into the operation of eligibility verification notices: namely, that the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that the costs to the person receiving the notice are reasonable and proportionate, or else agree to reimburse those costs in whole or in part, and that this be subjected to an independent review. This is not a marginal or administrative detail; it goes to the heart of how we structure and sustain effective partnerships between the Government and the private sector, and particularly to how we treat the banking sector as a key actor in the fight against public sector fraud.

Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, my noble friend Lady Finn and I have returned time and again to the importance of ensuring that the powers are exercised responsibly, with due regard to proportionality and fairness. This amendment is a natural extension of that principle. It recognises that, when we ask third parties—in this case, banks and financial institutions—to support fraud detection by responding to eligibility verification notices, we are asking them to divert time, resources and personnel to do so. This of course comes at a cost, and it is only right that these costs are acknowledged and handled fairly.

As has been said, the banking sector plays an essential role in supporting government anti-fraud objectives. Banks will help to identify irregularities, flag risks and support enforcement action. But if we want this co-operation to continue and to deepen, we must treat banks as strategic partners, not simply as tools to be leveraged without regard to impact. This amendment would ensure that we are not shifting the financial burden of fraud prevention on to the shoulders of institutions that are neither the source of the fraud nor the primary beneficiaries of its reduction. It would also introduce a basic but important fairness test, that if costs are disproportionate, they should be recognised and potentially reimbursed.

Given the scale and frequency with which these powers may be used under the new framework, we should recognise that banks may be required to undertake substantial internal data searches, compliance checks or system queries, potentially at short notice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out in her excellent remarks, to do so effectively, banks will need to allocate skilled staff and technological resources. It is only reasonable that we ensure that such work is feasible and fairly compensated where appropriate. Furthermore, the precise detail on how this mechanism will work is still vague from the Government.

I shall not mention flow charts again, for fear of being shouted down, but maybe we need a spreadsheet—although perhaps I shall be shouted down on that basis. Can the Minister give some detail as to how the “test and learn” with the banks is going as regards the operability of the system? In particular, what are the anticipated costs to the banks? It is understandable that the Government may not be able to answer this, as they may say that it will depend on the number of potential cases emerging and issues emanating for each case, which will vary. However, I would imagine—and I think that I said this at Second Reading—that the ongoing test-and-learn process will be able to highlight an average per case cost. If there is no information available, how do we know that the costs are not astronomical or even unsustainable for the system established? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am also pleased to welcome Amendments 84 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, which serve to strengthen the safeguards within the Bill.

Amendment 84 would ensure that an authorised person must have more than just the existence of an eligibility indicator before embarking on more intrusive investigations. We believe this is a vital protection against overreach, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unnecessary or disproportionate scrutiny based on limited evidence. Such a safeguard is entirely in keeping with my party’s principles of fairness and proportionality—that word again—and it will help to maintain public confidence in the system by ensuring that investigations are always grounded in robust evidence.

Amendment 85, which requires that information received following an eligibility verification notice is reviewed by an appropriately senior person before any changes to benefits or intrusive investigations are commenced, is equally welcome. This amendment introduces an important layer of oversight and accountability, ensuring that decisions with potentially significant consequences for individuals are not taken lightly or without proper consideration. By embedding these checks and balances into the Bill, we would be not only protecting the rights of claimants but upholding the integrity of our counterfraud efforts. I confirm other comments about how important these amendments are, and I hope that we can carry them forward to Report if need be.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of speak in support of Amendments 84 and 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. These are thoughtful, proportionate and necessary additions to this schedule, and they speak directly to the themes that we on these Benches, and many across the Committee, have consistently returned to throughout Committee: clarity, fairness and safeguards for the individual in the exercise of significant state powers.

Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that the mere presence of an eligibility indicator is not, in and of itself, treated as constituting reasonable grounds for suspicion, as required under new Section 109BZB(l)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, before certain investigatory powers can be triggered. This is of fundamental importance. The Bill proposes a system whereby data provided by financial institutions, under an EVN, may trigger further investigatory steps. But what is an eligibility indicator? It is, in essence, a flag: a signal generated through algorithmic or rule-based analysis that a particular feature of a person’s financial behaviour may be anomalous or potentially inconsistent with benefit entitlement.

As I have said before, we must be absolutely clear: an eligibility indicator is not a finding of fact. It is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. Amendment 84 simply ensures that the existence of a flag must be the beginning of a process and not the end of one; that further evidence or analysis must be applied before escalation; that human judgment must play a role, as has been mentioned today; and that when the state exercises its powers, especially when those powers touch on privacy, dignity or the right to subsistence, it does so on the basis of reasonable grounds. This is a proportionate safeguard. It respects the need to act on suspicious patterns, but it also respects the rights of the individual and the integrity of the system.

Amendment 85 builds on this principle by adding an additional layer of oversight—namely, that any action to suspend or amend a person’s benefits or to initiate intrusive investigatory steps must first be reviewed by a person of appropriate seniority and experience, authorised by the Secretary of State. Again, this is not an attempt to frustrate or delay the enforcement regime—it is a recognition that decisions on subsistence-level support must be taken with proper scrutiny by individuals equipped with the training, authority and awareness to make such decisions with the necessary care.

We must also remember that these are not abstract powers. They affect real and often vulnerable people, whose entire financial well-being may rest on the outcome of these decisions. A mistaken suspension of benefits, based on an unreviewed flag or misinterpreted data, can mean missed rent, no food on the table or the spiral into debt and instability. Also, it is possible that, if the system did not work as intended, individuals who suffered wrongful financial detriment—or, worse, reputational detriment—could take legal action.

If we are to maintain public trust in these powers, it is vital that there is confidence in not only their lawfulness but their soundness. A requirement that an appropriately senior official reviews and signs off on such actions is not a high bar. It is, in many ways, the least that we should expect of a responsible and accountable system. Can the Minister confirm, as she did the other day in respect of the Cabinet Office debates, the exact level of an appropriately senior official?

I should add that this chimes with remarks I made in our debate on a previous group about the need to have a so-called four eyes principle of oversight by a human being on decisions made—a fail-safe system for the monitoring of decision-making. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, outlined the arguments in this respect very well. Together, these amendments would provide what so many across the Committee have called for: safeguards that ensure that the system operates justly as well as efficiently. They would not remove powers or obstruct action. They would embed standards of evidence, scrutiny and accountability into the decision-making process—standards that we would demand in any area of public life where the stakes are this high.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome Amendments 89A and 89B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which seek to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions eligibility verification powers are restricted solely to bank accounts held in the name of the benefit claimant. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said a lot about this, and I agreed with it. These amendments are a measured and proportionate response to concerns about the scope of data-gathering under the Bill. By limiting DWP powers in this way, we would provide vital reassurance to claimants and their families that only their own accounts, not those of partners, relatives or unrelated third parties, will be subject to scrutiny. This approach would uphold the important principle of privacy and ensures that the fight against fraud does not inadvertently cast too wide a net, potentially impacting innocent individuals.

Further, these amendments would reinforce the Bill’s existing safeguards, which already stipulate that eligibility verification notices may be issued only for the purpose of identifying incorrect payments of relevant benefits and only in relation to accounts in receipt of specified benefits. By making it explicit that only the claimant’s own accounts can be examined, we would strengthen public trust in the system and demonstrate our commitment to fair and proportionate use of government powers.

So many people have joint accounts and accounts with more than two names on them, and I am not sure what would happen in those circumstances. You can see that, when Tom Bloggs or Sarah Bloggs have an account, there may be a reason to look at them—but if it is held by Sarah Bloggs and Tom Jones, what happens then? There is a danger here that people will be brought into the net, because accounts held in several names are very common, and I am not reassured from what I have read that they will not be dragged in in some way. I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in this case.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group. For once I shall be helpful to the Government, as I rise to speak in opposition to Amendments 89A and 89B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.

These amendments would limit the scope of Department for Work and Pensions eligibility verification powers, as we see it, so that they apply only to bank accounts held solely in the name of the benefit recipient, including joint accounts from scrutiny. I recognise the intention behind this proposal, which is to protect privacy and the financial autonomy of those sharing bank accounts with benefit claimants—the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, very eloquently set out his stall—but I respectfully argue that the amendments would create a significant and problematic loophole in the integrity of the fraud and error detection system.

Let us be clear: if these amendments were adopted, a person under investigation for suspected misrepresentation of assets or income could very easily shield those resources simply by transferring them into a joint account, potentially with a spouse, relative, or even a third party. Under the proposed wording, such an account would then fall outside the reach of the DWP’s verification powers, regardless of whether the claimant retained full control over the funds or continued to benefit from them. Perhaps the Minister can help me and the Committee in understanding how the DWP test-and-learn mechanism might have highlighted such an issue, and how it might have provided such a solution.

This is not a theoretical risk. We know from operational experience that individuals engaged in fraudulent activity will often use exactly such mechanisms to conceal income or capital. The ability to move money to a joint account is a clear weakness that could be exploited by those who—we must remember—are believed to have stolen money from the taxpayer.

Under the current drafting of the Bill, the Government rightly allow verification of accounts held by or accessible to the claimant, including joint accounts. This does not mean that third parties will have their data or finances indiscriminately accessed. There are safeguards in place. The department will not be able to view or interfere with every joint account at will, only those, as the Minister indicated earlier, where eligibility indicators suggest a relevant connection, and only where necessary to verify benefit entitlement. These powers are proportionate and targeted.

The amendments, however, would tie the hands of investigators, even where there is a clear and compelling reason to examine whether the claimant has access to or control over funds that affect their entitlement. In so doing, they would introduce a gaping loophole in the very process that is meant to protect taxpayer money and ensure fairness across the system. Let us not forget the public interest at stake here. We are talking about a welfare system that supports millions of people, but also one that must command public confidence and demonstrate that it is both compassionate and resilient to abuse. Creating a known and easily exploited blind spot, as these amendments would, risks undermining that confidence and inviting avoidable losses to fraud or error.

Moreover, this is not a question of criminalising or persecuting people who live with others or hold joint accounts for legitimate reasons. It is about ensuring that where state funds are being claimed on the basis of need, the system has a fair and proportionate—to use that word again—ability to verify the facts, including the assets and income to which the claimant may have access.

No one benefits from a system where loopholes are left open, least of all the people whom the welfare state exists to support. These amendments may be well intentioned, as I said earlier, but they would weaken the ability of the department to carry out its responsibilities effectively, and in doing so would undermine both the fairness and sustainability of the benefits system. I therefore urge noble Lords not to support these amendments. Let us uphold the principle that verification powers should be robust, proportionate and resistant to manipulation—and not inadvertently create a rule that the dishonest can use to their advantage.

Finally, I feel that I might have written a speech for the Minister, but I am sure that she will tell me that I am completely wrong and, perhaps, rebut some of my points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, it is another sort of spirit that I want at the moment.

I am pleased to welcome these thoughtful amendments, which significantly enhance the transparency, accountability and fairness of the Bill. Amendment 90 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, seeks to ensure that the voices and experiences of benefit recipients are taken into account in any independent review of eligibility verification measures. This is a vital step in building trust and legitimacy for these new powers, ensuring that those most affected have a say in how the system is reviewed and improved. Listening to recipients will provide invaluable insights, helping to identify unintended consequences and ensuring that the system remains responsive and humane.

Similarly, Amendments 91A and 91B are tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friend Lady Kramer, who is busy in the Chamber on the Employment Rights Bill, where I should have been. These are crucial safeguards. Amendment 91A requires that the independent review specifically considers the impact of eligibility verification on vulnerable persons, ensuring that our most at-risk citizens are not overlooked or disproportionately affected. Amendment 91B strengthens the review process by obliging the Secretary of State to disclose all information reasonably requested by the independent reviewer rather than leaving disclosure to ministerial discretion. These changes will create a more vigorous and effective oversight regime, fostering public confidence that the powers are being exercised justly and transparently. I support these amendments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking for the Opposition, I should say that there is quite a bit to say, but I have cut down my remarks in the interests of time. I think the Committee will be pleased to hear that.

I regret that once again I oppose an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whose proposed change to Clause 75 seeks to replace the appointment of an independent person with that of a

“panel, at least 50% of which is … elected by recipients of the benefits in question”.

Although I understand the sentiment behind this proposal—namely, to ensure that the voices of benefit recipients are heard in the process of oversight—I respectfully submit that this amendment is not the right way to achieve that goal. It is very democratic in spirit but unworkable.

I will begin with the practicalities. This amendment, if accepted, would introduce a highly complex, costly and poorly defined mechanism for oversight. The idea of electing panel members from among benefits recipients across all forms of social security is, on the face of it, well-meaning, as I said, but in practice it presents serious challenges. Who would organise and administer such elections? How would the eligibility to vote or stand be determined? What benefit types would qualify and what mechanisms would ensure proportional representation across regions, demographics and types of support? Those questions are not trivial; they go to the core of whether such a panel could ever be considered credible, workable or legitimate in the eyes of the public, including the very claimants it is intended to empower. I also suspect that it would take an age to establish. Those are rather harsh remarks, but I wanted to make those points.

Moreover, we must ask what value this mechanism adds that is not already achievable through more conventional, proven models of independent oversight. There are already established ways to ensure that claimants’ experiences and perspectives inform the design and review of eligibility verification processes through public consultation, user engagement panels, stakeholder round tables and the commissioning of qualitative research from trusted bodies. Those are the serious proposals the Minister must consider, and I am sure she will, in the formulation of the Bill.

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is surely a probing one, although I do not think he said that—but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, we must also consider the principle at stake here. Although it is right that we take account of the views of claimants whose lived experience is, I admit, vital in shaping fair and effective policy, it is not clear why 50% of an independent review body should be drawn exclusively from that group and no other. If the logic is that those affected by a policy should have a say in reviewing it, then surely one should equally argue that those funding the system—namely, taxpayers—should have a similar right to elect members or, indeed, that professionals with technical expertise in fraud prevention, digital systems or legal due process should be the ones appointed. In other words, this proposal risks becoming an exercise in representational logic that ticks a few boxes but is ineffective.

On the other hand, Amendment 91A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, speaks to principles that we on these Benches have returned to time and again, which I will not repeat now. Clause 75 establishes an independent review of how the Secretary of State’s powers are being exercised. It is only right and essential that when we assess how these powers are working in practice, we also assess how they are affecting those who are most at risk of being overlooked, misunderstood or wrongly penalised by the system. That is precisely what Amendment 91A would ensure. It would add a single but vital criterion to the scope of the review—the need to examine the impact on vulnerable persons, not as an afterthought or a footnote but as a formal and explicit part of the oversight process.

Why does this matter? We know from evidence, experience and common sense that those with vulnerabilities are more likely to struggle with complex paperwork, to misunderstand official communications and to have irregular financial arrangements that do not fit neatly into bureaucratic templates. Those individuals are not necessarily gaming the system; they are trying to get by. But unless the operation of the Bill is sensitive to their needs, they could too easily become the collateral damage of a system designed to root out frauds. Let us be clear: it is entirely possible to take tough action on fraud and take care not to harm vulnerable people in the process. It is not a question of either/or; it is a matter of how we build safeguards into the system so that it delivers justice, not just efficiency.

Amendment 91B, also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, addresses a critical point of principle—namely, that the independent reviewer must be genuinely independent. At present, Clause 75 allows the Secretary of State to determine what information may be disclosed to the independent reviewer. In our submission—and, I suspect, in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and other noble Lords—this is not the way to construct a genuinely independent mechanism of review. We cannot have a system in which the Secretary of State can control the flow of information to the independent reviewer. We believe that this amendment would restore some balance.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, there is really not a lot to say at this stage. We support the purposes of the Bill. Obviously, it is not meant to be a contentious Bill, but the interesting thing is the fine line that it draws between chasing people who have made honest mistakes and those who enter into fraud. As with income tax—if we still use the old words from my accountancy days—the difference between evasion and avoidance is sometimes a very thin line. We will explore where you draw that line in terms of how you chase people for mistakes that have been made, perhaps on purpose or perhaps in error. We look forward to the progress of the Bill to see where those lines are drawn.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly as the other opposition Front-Bencher working on the Bill. I shall make a few introductory remarks on the purpose of the Bill as we begin Committee. I join my noble friend Lady Finn in welcoming this opportunity to have a productive, collaborative opening discussion on what the Bill is actually about and what it should be about.

Public sector fraud, as we have debated, is a crime that hurts every taxpayer in the country. It hurts every public service user and is an insult to everyone who works hard, pays their taxes and contributes to our society. This is a problem that we need to take steps to address, and the Government are right to reintroduce legislation and restart the process, which I know both Ministers acknowledge was started under the previous Government.

As noble Lords will be aware, my main focus will be on the second part of the Bill, which covers the DWP. This will not be covered so much in the amendments under discussion today, although I want to take the opportunity at the outset to flag up in advance and highlight some of the concerns that I have around these provisions and where my focus will be in the forthcoming Committee days. I hope this is helpful to the Committee.

First, on banks, there are still many questions over how the relationship between the DWP and the banks will manifest itself. We do not have clarity from the Government over how the process will work in practical terms or the costs that will be incurred by the DWP and financial institutions as a result of compliance under the terms of the Bill. As we highlighted at Second Reading, the Government, if they remain committed to human oversight of all decisions and reviews of information obtained from banks, could see a massive increase in their workload. Gaining greater clarity on this relationship, how it will work, the impact that it is anticipated to have and the resources required will form part of our approach on this part of the Bill.

Linked to this is the need to test the means to the end. What will be the cost for the expected return? How will the return be defined? That is the identity and recovery of fraud; also, the measurement of the deterrent factor in taking greater and more stringent measures to combat fraud—to take the challenge to the fraudsters, who have been seen to become ever more sophisticated. We will wish to challenge enforcement. What works? What are the sanctions for those who are convicted? Are they effective? What costs and resources are judged to be estimated in respect of this aspect of the Bill?

Secondly, we want to ensure that the Bill protects vulnerable people and recognises additional factors that may lie behind, for example, an overpayment. Proportionality in the exercise of these powers is vital, and we need to ensure that we do not cause greater harm than good in the pursuit of our shared objective. This concern is shared by noble Lords in this Committee. I am hopeful that we can reach an understanding with amendments that protect vulnerable people.

Finally, we see the Bill as an opportunity to combat those who seek to share information, allowing people to defraud the benefits and welfare system—the so-called “sickfluencers”. This is a serious problem. Thousands of people every day are consuming content that informs them of how to play examiners and score certain points based not on their actual health condition but on a script they have been taught online. These assessments are the mechanism through which the state determines eligibility for welfare payments. “Sickfluencers” who actively encourage dishonesty and make money out of a dishonest gaming system for exploitation must be stopped. We shall support amendments that seek to make this an explicit offence, so that there can be no room for doubt that these actions are wrong and could be criminal.

This is an important discussion on a topic that deeply affects everyone in our country. I welcome the opportunity to discuss ideas and suggestions for improvements to the Bill, which attempts to achieve a noble task. I and my noble friend Lady Finn will work in good faith with the Government and noble Lords across the Committee to improve the Bill and to make it effective and responsible.

Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Drake, for their contributions to this interesting evening. I bring fellow Peers back to the order before us—the Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2025—which is the basis for our discussion today, rather than the wide-ranging subjects we have dealt with.

The order says that the Pension Protection Fund levy cannot exceed £1.4 billion, but the Pension Protection Fund has announced that it plans a levy of no more than £45 million, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and potentially of zero. I cite this from the 2025-26 plans of the Pension Protection Fund.

The background is that, when the PPF was created, the worry was that if things turned out badly and lots of underfunded DB pension schemes went bust, the hole in the PPF would be met by jacking up the levy on the sponsors of surviving DB pension schemes—in other words, the employers. Two protections for the employers were put in place: the levy cannot rise by more than 25% from one year to the next and it cannot exceed the levy ceiling, which is the number in this order.

What actually happened was that the levy grew for a while, though got nowhere near the ceiling, but then started to fall owing to a combination, as has been referred to, of good investment returns at the PPF, lower than expected numbers of insolvencies—which is great news—and improved scheme funding. That all gives rise to it being in “robust health”, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, defined it, and the comments around surplus or reserves, which we are not to talk about.

I guess that the PPF would like to charge a zero levy but does not feel that it can; once it is zero it can never be reintroduced, because it cannot rise by more than 25%, and 25% of zero is zero. It has therefore been lobbying the DWP for a while to allow it to set a zero levy and still be able to bring it back later if, unhappily, things go wrong. I think it has won the argument and I hope that a measure to this effect will be included in the forthcoming pensions scheme Bill that has been referred to.

This order, which is what we are talking about, is a formality and the ceiling obviously does not bite in any conceivable world. Can the Government confirm that, following the success of the PPF, they plan to change the rules to make it possible—this is the important part—for the PPF to charge a zero levy? Other noble Lords have referred to this flexibility that is needed. I hope the Minister can give us a positive steer on that.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for securing this important and timely debate about a topic that encompasses and highlights the financial security of retirees, impacts the stability of the economy and involves the balance of responsibility and the relationship between employers, individuals, pension fund boards and trustees, and the Government. As always, it is a pleasure to precede the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. As she might expect, most of my questions will be directed more towards her than to the noble Lord.

We are not here to contest the order—the statutory annual levy rise in line with the growth of average weekly earnings, thereby increasing the PPF and the occupational pensions scheme levy ceiling by 4% for 2025-26. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, it is a formality. However, there are legitimate questions to ask and this is an opportunity for me to ask some questions from the Opposition about government strategy, if I may.

First, I am sure your Lordships will agree that, as a safeguard, the Pension Protection Fund is a crucial backstop for protecting the retirement savings of millions of people in the UK. I very much agree with the compliments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, about the PPF and its management. It seems obvious to say this but, nevertheless, I will say it: we should not take for granted the importance of financial security in retirement, especially as people are living longer and relying more on the provision of private pension income.

Welfare Reform

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on these long- awaited and much-trumpeted welfare reforms. I say at the outset that the Government are right to look at our growing welfare bill, which is far too high—I think we agree on that. Without action, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. We need to increase the number of reassessments and hold more in-person assessments to ensure that only those who are eligible for welfare payments receive them.

In government, up until July, we extended employment support, and Ministers are right to continue with our Conservative legacy in the form of the tailored pathway. My first question to the Minister is: how will the £1 billion earmarked for this be measured in terms of success and meaningful results?

Above all else, we welcome the reannouncement of a host of projects and initiatives that we, the previous Government, were already undertaking, such as changing work capability assessments and creating a single assessment; merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new, time-limited higher rate; and, of course, I should remind the Benches opposite, providing support for WorkWell. The Labour Party’s slow conversion to the idea that our country needs everybody who can work to do so should be welcomed today.

However, after eight months of dither and delay, the taxpayer has forked out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, while nearly half a million more people have been signed off sick. On that note, or perhaps I should say fit notes, there is considerable surprise that the Government have scrapped them. It remains the case that there is a 94% sign-off rate, and this sits at the heart of the sickness benefit epidemic. Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Where are the steps that we need to take to bring down the number of people who are leaving work every single day? Currently, it stands at 2,000 people a day, and Ministers need to tackle this urgently. We do not blame the doctors, who are so busy. Can the Minister spell out what, after today’s announcement, the process is for assessing whether someone is fit to undertake work of any sort—while recognising, of course, that this is a key challenge for any Government?

Today’s announcement leaves more questions than it provides answers, and on the areas the Government have finally acted on, they need to be tougher. I have to say that £5 billion in savings is a drop in the ocean compared to the explosion in disability benefits, which, as I said earlier, are set to rise to nearly £100 billion by 2029. Do the Government think that this saving is sufficient, and enough to fill their fiscal black hole, which is the real reason why they are expected to take emergency budgetary steps next week? We on these Benches are unclear whether this small saving is net of the costs and commitments to extra expenditure in today’s Statement. Can the Minister tell us whether the savings announced today include the £5 billion the previous Government had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, today’s announcement will mean no real savings at all for the Government.

Turning to the plans to change PIP, they leave us with yet more uncertainty and will leave those most concerned about the speculation in recent weeks still in the dark. Will the Minister say why there have been so many leaks, semi-announcements and prolonged rumours over several weeks, which have caused genuine anxiety for those most vulnerable? I hope that a post-mortem is going on in the department, or even in No. 10, about this. The proposal to require individuals to score a minimum of four points raises crucial questions. Who decides how these points will be awarded, and thus is ultimate arbiter of who is deserving of the state’s support? Will there be an appeals tribunal process, with an even longer backlog? Ministers say they will consult on this. Can the Minister confirm exactly when this consultation will be completed and when she expects the new assessment system to be operational? Why did the Government cancel our PIP consultation? What is the difference between this one—the Minister referred to a review—and the previous Government’s, apart from an at least eight-month delay?

On the “right to try” initiative, can the Minister give us some more information about how this will work? For example, if someone goes on to the scheme but after, say, two weeks, they say the role is not for them, can they go straight back on benefits? What is the catch, if any? It would be very helpful to have an explanation. With today’s announcements being linked to the Green Paper, I am not clear what happens next. Is there a White Paper or is this the end of the process, but for these announcements?

There is clearly much anecdotal evidence of fraud in the benefit system. The Minister will cite the upcoming fraud Bill, which focuses, as she knows, on interventions by banks, but it is not clear whether the Bill tackles the malicious websites that direct those inclined to abuse the benefit system. Will the Minister give her view on this?

This was a chance to seize the moment and to choose work over a life on benefits, but the Government have fallen short. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. Yet still, the fundamental question of how many people will be helped back into work, and by when, remains unanswered by this announcement.

I remind the Benches opposite that, under Parliaments going back to 2010, successive Conservative Governments helped 4 million more people into work, and we will continue to champion work as a means to bring dignity, purpose and security for individuals and their families.

I finish by acknowledging the large number of questions that I have posed to the Minister. I have great respect for the Minister; she knows that. She will know that the tone of my questions is not directed so much at her personally but is a riposte to the overtly and rather unnecessary political stance taken earlier in the other place by the right honourable Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, these welfare reforms aim to reduce benefit spending while encouraging greater workforce participation. I thank the Minister for reading the Statement and the noble Viscount for the useful questions that he has raised. I have respect for both of them, as they know.

From these Benches, we want to see more people in work, including those with disabilities. While the need for reform is clear, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that the current proposals risk worsening the very issues that they intend to address. We all want to see a more efficient welfare system, but that cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable in society, particularly those with disabilities or health conditions. Instead of focusing on short-term cuts, we must reform the system in a way that is fair and compassionate and ensures dignity for all.

Does the Minister agree that one of the main aims of this reform package is, as the Statement says, to save £5 billion—often at the expense of the vulnerable in society?

One key area of concern are the proposed cuts to benefits for people with disabilities, which could push many into poverty and greater dependence on social care. The chief executive of Citizens Advice has warned that these changes could have “serious long-term consequences”, and we on these Benches passionately agree. For individuals with severe disabilities or health conditions, this reform package may well create further barriers to employment rather than removing them. The Government’s proposal to freeze the health top- up in universal credit for existing claimants, while reducing it for new ones, will only add to the pressure on disabled individuals, undermining their ability to achieve independence and security. Why are new claimants considered less vulnerable than existing claimants? Of course, that is nonsense and worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge.

These Benches welcome the idea of merging contributory benefits and creating a new unemployment insurance, but the fact remains that we are still waiting for an overdue comprehensive overhaul of the Department for Work and Pensions. Until the Government get serious about fixing health and social care—systems that are intrinsically linked to people’s ability to work—the welfare system will continue to struggle. The social care review’s three-year timeline is hugely disappointing and highlights the lack of urgency in addressing these critical issues. If the Government truly want to cut benefit spending, they must first address the root causes, not just apply superficial, short-term fixes borne by those least able to object.

These Benches remain committed to supporting people with disabilities into employment. We agree whole- heartedly with the Government’s aim to provide a right to try to work without the risk of losing benefits. However, from history, I have a sneaking premonition that it will be more difficult, and slow, to get back on to the benefits ladder once you have tried to work. That is what has happened in the past.

The wider changes, including delays in the health top-up for young people and increasing reassessments, must be approached with caution. We need to ensure that any reforms we make are sustainable and focused on long-term support for those who are most in need. Does the Minister agree that a balanced approach is needed—one that addresses the root causes of welfare dependency and puts people’s dignity and well-being at the heart of its reforms?

Pensions Regulator Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice 2024

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 21st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Indeed, I thank all the speakers for the expertise gathered in this Room on what is an unlikely subject for many people.

On the DB funding code, first, with all the expertise that has been expressed—and for those reading Hansard who have no expertise—perhaps I ought to say something basic. For the record, what is a defined benefit pension? It is a type of workplace pension that guarantees you a specific income for life throughout retirement. The amount that it pays out depends on things such as your final salary, your average salary and how long you have been a member of your employer’s scheme. I know that everyone in the Room knows that, but people outside it may not.

The DB code has been many years in the making, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. It sets out in detail how defined benefit pension schemes will have to approach funding in future, including things such as how quickly they must deal with any deficit that may arise. The code was arguably written in an era of deficits, whereas the majority of DB schemes are now in surplus, but I agree that you still need a set of rules for those schemes that are short of funds.

Despite all the worthy speeches, most of the code is uncontroversial, in my view, and has my general support. The response from the industry has been broadly positive; it appears to give trustees and scheme sponsors flexibility while ensuring that they carry out proper risk management as it relates to their pension products. Numerous articles have been written on it; given the length of this debate, I will not go into them in any great detail, but I highlight an article entitled “PwC Comments on The Pensions Regulator’s New Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice” and an article in Pensions Age Magazine headed “Industry expresses ‘relief’ as TPR confirms final DB Funding Code”. So the industry and commentators have been complimentary in general terms.

However, I wish to raise some issues on which I would appreciate the Minister’s views. First, how far does the code truly accommodate the needs of remaining open DB schemes? This was a big topic of debate in the Lords during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. Does it allow them to take an appropriate level of investment risk for the long term, rather than having to go for lower-risk assets prematurely? This simply means that they cost more to run, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said in another way.

Secondly, how far does the code recognise the particular position of charities and other not-for-profit sponsors of pension schemes? Is there a risk of charities being forced to close deficits too quickly and, therefore, having to divert a loss of revenue income into the pension scheme? There would then be a risk of it appearing to donors to those charities that their money is not being used for front-line charitable purposes, thereby weakening the charities’ futures. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.

Finally, I am sure the Minister has read the blog by David Fairs, who worked at the Pensions Regulator. It was headed: “At long last, new regulations fire the starting gun for the new funding regime”. He stresses the challenges and opportunities missed. He queries—and he is an expert—whether the new funding code will make a significant difference. I ask the Minister the same question.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us the opportunity to have the first pensions debate in this House since the general election. This Committee is my first experience of swapping sides with the Minister, and it gives me the opportunity to wish her well in her role with all its responsibilities, with which I am all too familiar.

This debate on the defined benefit code of practice is interesting in that, as has been said, it is not an SI but arises out of one in the form of delegated powers from the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024. It seems that every decade or so there is a requirement for a code update: there was one in 2006, leading to the current version in 2014, and now in 2024 we are debating another code of practice—number four, I believe. Updates are based on the premise that the pensions landscape changes, and of course it does, as now with the need for scrutiny of liabilities in DB schemes, the plethora of closed and maturing schemes and the need to ensure risk management, greater robustness over the longer term and optimum management of open schemes, which have been alluded to in this debate.

Ensuring that pension schemes are well managed is essential in safeguarding the incomes and welfare of pensioners. This is especially important at a time when the cost of living is high and the Government are restricting the financial support available to pensioners—more of which later. I welcome the publication of this code and its stated aim of helping trustees comply with their responsibilities under the defined benefit pension funding requirements. The focus is necessarily on supportable risk and ensuring that trustees and sponsoring employers are not caught unawares and plan well ahead, in particular where schemes are nearing maturity.

The work on the code was undertaken by the regulator under the previous Government, and I am pleased that the consultation on the code—there have actually been several, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others alluded to—has been widely accepted by a broad range of stakeholders. I note that where there were concerns, such as on the need for flexible risk-taking at low dependency and not a one-size-catch-all approach, they were largely addressed and accepted in discussions with the industry.

I have listened with interest to the technical points raised by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I know that these points will be addressed—I say this with some relief—by the Minister. By his own admission, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, repeated some of the points made in the debate in March, such as about so-called box-ticking and the code being too prescriptive. In March he also mentioned his concern about the regulator misunderstanding its role, although I am not sure he alluded to that today.

My first question to the Minister leads on from this. It is simply: is the job done? Is the code an iterative process because we do not want another 10-year wait, or do we just accept that this is bringing it up to date and that, in effect, we wait for eight or 10 years? It does not particularly matter, I suppose.

I have some questions of my own on the code. The best-practice management of pension schemes is dependent on the effectiveness of trustees. How does the Minister regard the current landscape for recruiting trustees? There is a danger that too much guidance and steer towards adherence to codes, with the greater responsibilities attached, could act as a chilling factor.

What is her assessment about the training of trustees? This question plays into other questions, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who quite rightly alluded to the important relationship between employers and their covenants, as well as the trustees. Who undertakes this training? This is important in assisting the chairs of trustees and, of course, the supporting employers.