Child Maintenance Service
Andrew Western Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to him and his constituents. I hope that I will assure him in my contribution that it is important to the Government too.
Far too many children are growing up in poverty. A key priority for this Labour Government is to reduce that number as soon as possible. That is why child maintenance is incredibly important. It is estimated that child maintenance payments keep around 160,000 children out of poverty each year. That has involved the CMS arranging around £1.4 billion in child maintenance payments in the 12 months to September 2024.
Tackling child poverty is an urgent priority for the Government, which is why we have already announced our commitment to triple investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million, to roll out free breakfast clubs at all primary schools, to create 3,000 additional nurseries and to increase the national living wage to £12.21 an hour from April to boost the pay of 3 million workers, many of them parents.
The ministerial child poverty taskforce, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is working to publish a child poverty strategy later this year, which will deliver lasting change. In developing the strategy, the taskforce is exploring all available levers for reducing child poverty across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister mentioned that the taskforce would look at all options. Would that include scrapping the two-child benefit cap?
Andrew Western
The hon. Member will have heard me say that we are looking at all available levers across those four areas. We rule nothing in and nothing out, but I understand his point.
We are aware of the challenges that the CMS faces and recognise that there is scope for improvement. The ministerial team as a whole is committed to making those improvements. On what we are doing about those issues, I will turn to the recent direct pay consultation, which the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire referred to, and offer some background to the proposed reforms. My party has long called for reforms to the direct pay service, stating that it does not work for all parents. For that reason, this Government extended the direct pay consultation launched by the previous Government, with the express purpose of gathering as much feedback from stakeholders as possible. We are looking closely at the feedback received and will publish the Government response in due course. I appreciate that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire would ask for a more specific timeline, but I hope he will appreciate that in what is an incredibly delicate area—dealing with vulnerable children, vulnerable families and strained relationships—we want to take our time and ensure that we get the changes right.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
My hon. Friend will know that getting it right for the most vulnerable children is important, but we are increasingly seeing post-separation abuse and post-separation financial abuse coming to light. Indeed, the report from Gingerbread that I cited earlier said that 45% of people who report post-separation financial abuse say that it gets worse when the CMS is involved. I hope that any report into the work of the CMS and supporting vulnerable families will look at that question and help us get some answers on that issue.
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a long history of working not just on CMS issues but on child poverty more broadly, and his expertise is of great value to the House. I will say a little more about domestic abuse and financial abuse later in my contribution, but I reassure him that the focus we had in the consultation on the proposed abolition of direct pay was intended as a specific response to that issue. I have seen appalling examples in cases that have crossed my desk as a Minister of people who can message their former partner in the form of a comment on a bank transaction. They will transfer a penny—they have a direct payment in place—along with an abusive term or some form of triggering harassment of a former victim of theirs. That shows that while a parent may have moved away from that unsafe and dangerous environment, they are never fully away when direct pay is engaged.
Andrew Western
I can see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) trying to come in. I will beat him to it and give way.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister. I expect that we will have a positive response from him to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and all the queries, because that is what we get from the Minister we have in front of us.
One of the things that really frustrates me—it frustrates us all—is whenever one of my constituents comes to me and says, “I get a different person every time I phone up. I have to tell them the same story over and over again, and then you go back two weeks later and the person you were speaking to is away as well.” There must be some way in the Department for Work and Pensions that we can have a specific case officer who looks after something, and they need to respond to that person. I know that the Minister understands these things, but, honestly, it is so simple to sort out—at least, it seems to me to be simple. We really need something on behalf of all our constituents.
Andrew Western
I absolutely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. With specific reference to named caseworkers, initially for victims of domestic abuse, I will have something further to say that I think he and all hon. Members will welcome, but I take his more general point.
If I may make some progress, turning to direct pay and domestic violence, financial abuse and so on, the proposals also sought views on collection fees and explored how victims and survivors of domestic abuse can be better supported. That is so important given the issues raised by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the case he cited of his constituent. Overall, work is ongoing to establish the steps needed to really improve the service, taking account of the views of parents. Those will be set out in the response to the consultation. I appreciate that he would like that to be as soon as possible; I will take that away.
To drill down on the issue of domestic abuse, the scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and the Government will treat it as the national emergency that it is. Our manifesto included the mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade—we were right to do so—and I and all Ministers are focused on making that a reality. If I may, I will therefore say a little about the support that should be available. If the hon. Member wants to share specific details of the case that he referenced with me, I will take that away. The support that should be available is extensive and runs contrary to what clearly happened in the case that he outlined.
We have overseen progress in providing support, with the continued roll-out of an operational team to deliver targeted support to parents subjected to the most challenging and complex domestic abuse. The team provide a tailored and discrete service to customers, which is incredibly important, giving regular progress updates. They can and do assign a named caseworker to prevent customers having to re-tell their story at each interaction. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was saying, that can be incredibly stressful for parents using the service. Caseworkers are trained to identify and refer appropriate cases within the collect and pay service to that team. More generally, the CMS consulted on a diverse range of stakeholders to review its domestic abuse training for all frontline CMS staff to ensure that caseworkers understand, recognise and respond appropriately to customers who are experiencing domestic abuse or who are survivors of domestic abuse.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing the debate. Like him, I have had a number of people come to me with stories of being ignored, let down or left behind by this agency. The sooner the failures of the agency are dealt with, the better for people not just in my constituency but up and down the United Kingdom. With that in mind, will the Minister find time to meet me to talk about the specific examples faced by my constituents? He touched on the point that this is an equality and safety issue. That is very much the situation in my patch for the people who come to my surgery. I would therefore be grateful, in the spirit he has approached the debate so far, if he could find time to meet me to discuss those points.
Andrew Western
I should have known that my hon. Friend would be in his place. He is keen on an Adjournment debate—we all know that. This is where I out myself as an imposter, because I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the CMS, but I am very happy to put him in touch with the Department’s Minister in the House of Lords, who I am sure would be happy to have a conversation with him.
Turning back to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the points he made about calculation reforms, a broad review of the child maintenance calculation is being conducted. It is examining the scope for change and improvements, while maintaining the simplicity of the calculation. It can be very frustrating for paying parents who are waiting to have income reassessed, and for receiving parents when they are aware that a paying parent has received a substantial income increase. The calculation at present generally looks at income from the previous tax year and it is only when somebody’s income has changed with a divergence of more than 25% in either direction that it triggers an in-year evaluation. We are looking at ways we can change that, while recognising that we need to encourage payment compliance and more sustainable arrangements in all that we do.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the £20 application fee he referred to was removed in 2024, getting rid of a financial barrier to parents wishing to access the CMS. Proposals to include more types of taxable income held by HMRC within the standard maintenance calculation are being considered, alongside the review of the child maintenance calculation.
Turning to enforcement—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) also raised this issue—I can understand that for some receiving parents there are frustrations with how quickly the CMS secures payment from non-compliant paying parents. We have seen significant improvements to speed up action when payments first break down and to target enforcement action more effectively. We are changing the process at present to make direct deductions something we can do more swiftly where issues emerge. We have a range of strong enforcement powers that can be used against those who consistently refuse to meet their obligations to provide financial support to their children, and in the past year to September 2024 the CMS has collected £16.8 million from paying parents with civil enforcement actions in process. Collections through civil enforcement have followed a general upwards trajectory in recent years. For comparison, the equivalent figure in 2021 was £10.3 million.
I would like to finish by talking about the improvements to customer experience and digital services that the Department has been introducing. Since 2020, as part of the DWP service modernisation programme, the Department has transformed the ways in which customers can interact with the CMS, providing customers with the choice to make contact with digital routes and reducing the time taken to action change of circumstances. We continue to develop our digital offer, evaluating through user research and customer feedback, but we are committed to retaining a non-digital telephony service to ensure that no customer is excluded.
As I said earlier, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is rightly impatient, as are other Members, to see change and to see the details of our reform package following the conclusion of the recent consultation, but getting the right solution will take a little time. It is right that the changes that we make are properly considered and robust so that the CMS can continue to play not just an important role but an ever-more effective and increasingly important role in supporting children and tackling child poverty.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting)
Andrew Western ExcerptsTuesday 25th February 2025
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
The Chair
Do you want to add anything, Mr Las?
Richard Las: On the covid side of things, we have not stopped our efforts, but we have recognised that we are not going to pursue it as a lead subject. However, we are conducting other inquiries and looking to other taxes. We will be looking at whether there was fraud under the covid schemes, and we will still be pursuing that. I still have a large number of cases going through the courts or heading towards prosecution in relation to the scheme. A bit like Joshua, I am certainly not giving up on it—we will keep pursuing it—but, in a decision on how we deploy our resources, we are saying, “We’ll look to what we think are the higher risks, and we will pick up the covid risks as and when we come across them at the same time.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Specifically, do you mean the EVM—eligibility verification measure—stuff?
Andrew Western
All the powers pertaining to the DWP—the five principal areas in the DWP’s proposals—so information gathering, debt recovery, penalties reform, powers of search and seizure, and EVM.
Joshua Reddaway: Okay. To step back, we have been looking at a general trend of rising levels of benefit fraud for a few years. Actually, it has come down a little since covid, because there was a blip then, but if we take covid out, the levels were rising anyway. Currently, it is more than £10 billion, if you include the bit of benefits that HMRC pays—obviously, that is coming down with universal credit.
I do not think that what is in the Bill will solve that; what is in the Bill will support tackling it. This is about adding a few tools to the DWP toolkit. The key thing is that prevention is better than recovery. DWP is really good—one of the best in the world, as far as we can see—at knowing how much fraud is occurring; I am afraid it is not very good at saying why it occurs. In particular, DWP is not great at saying what it is about the way in which it administers benefits that enables fraud to occur or error to happen.
For some time, we have been advocating for DWP to get a much more granular view of its control environment. I think that, given how I interpret the capital rules here—it is an EVM exercise—it is doing that. This is one of the places where DWP said, “Actually, our control over capital at the moment is, frankly, to ask people how much capital they have,” which left it fairly exposed to the risk that people did not tell them the truth. Several times, the Public Accounts Committee asked DWP if it had the powers it needed, and several times has said, “The one area we need to explore is capital.” The challenge for this Committee is to work out whether that proposal is reasonable and includes enough oversight, given the privacy issues. In terms of there being a real problem behind it, however, I can confirm that there is a control-level issue that DWP is trying to resolve.
The other issues that the Bill tries to deal with on enforcement are similar. If we look at the impact assessment, the EVM was £500 million a year when fully rolled out and operational—that is a significant dent, but only a dent, in the £10 billion. I want to be clear: yes, I do think that there will be an impact. Is it sufficient? No. Is it meant to be sufficient? I doubt it. I think that DWP knows that, and that it has a very hard slog ahead of it. I will try to hold it to account—I am afraid it is your Department—on that hard slog of understanding where fraud is coming in and where error is happening, and put in controls step by step to improve it. There are no shortcuts in that.
Richard Las: My reflection is that fraud is inherently difficult to identify and potentially more difficult to investigate at times. How do you identify fraud? If I think about HMRC, you need information and to be able to triangulate information to understand the risks in front of you so that you can identify the highest risk. Sometimes you will not know what that risk is, or whether it is fraud or error, but it will point you in a direction. I feel that as an agency, if you have fraud, you need a good bedrock of information to understand the environment and to identify risk. A lot of that information can be information you gather from your customer—in our case, a taxpayer—or third party information. It is information that we can use to triangulate and verify. We do that regularly with lots of different information sets.
Once you come to investigate and deal with fraud, it is obvious to everybody, but people do not always co-operate, so you need powers that allow you to compel people to co-operate or powers that allow you to secure information and evidence in a way that you otherwise would not be able to do, because people would not do that. On the general framework, we are always looking to improve our basis for powers and our ability to use them. Certainly I feel that much of what is included in the Bill is powers that HMRC already has in many respects. We use those powers, we would argue, in a proportionate and necessary way, and there are controls and safeguards about how we do that. It is a difficult business with fraud. If you do not have some of those tools at your disposal, you are working with one arm behind your back.
Andrew Western
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Is there an alternative? I am aware that DWP is thinking about open banking as an alternative, but that, of course, would have wider implications and at the moment is on a voluntary basis. You have got that.
I honestly think that it fundamentally comes down to this: if you want to be able to detect, and if Parliament has set an eligibility criterion of capital as part of universal credit and some other benefits, DWP can either use that as a kind of symbolic deterrent so that you can opt out by owning up that you have that capital—that has a use—or if you want it to actually be enforced, you have to provide DWP with a tool that goes a bit further than just asking. There are various ways that you can get data matching from various different partners. This is the one that the Government have come up with.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: It is the Finance Act 2011 that you refer to, which allows us bulk data gathering powers on information that we believe will support our functions. I guess it is not just the banks, but we do get the information on interest-bearing accounts. It is an annual exercise, not a real-time exercise. It is clearly timed in such a way that it helps us understand whether the right amount of tax has been paid on interest that has been accrued. We are talking about large accounts because in most cases people’s interest is quite small, but there will be some people who get a lot of it. We have a huge amount of controls over how we manage that information and how we use it and protect it; they are our normal requirements as with any other taxpayer data.
We gather other information from third parties. We have information from merchant acquirers on transactions that businesses might make, for example. We also have information that we get from online platforms in terms of sales and things like that. It is all part of bringing that information together. HMRC very much respects taxpayer confidentiality and manages that data responsibly. I guess those safeguards can exist in other organisations.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: I do not know, if I am honest, whether there is. I can look that up for you.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I think you are referring to the report we did in March 2023, after the PSFA had just been established. We very much wanted it to be a baseline for the challenges it was trying to deal with. We basically said that there needed to be a cultural change across all of Government, that 84% of the resources were in DWP and HMRC, and that covid really exposed that the Government did not have the capability in other Departments. I have to say that, from our point of view, we saw fraud as essentially a welfare and tax issue for many years, so it was a bit of a surprise to start bringing it out to the other Departments a bit more.
I would interpret the Bill as being about giving the powers, particularly on the enforcement side, and in the meantime, the PSFA has been doing quite a lot on the prevention side. The prevention side is primarily where I would be focused because that is where the biggest gains are to be had in dealing with the cultural changes that are needed across all of Government. Mind you, I do not read the Bill as being against that; I see it as supplementary.
We would be very disappointed if the PSFA became exclusively an investigation and enforcement-type agency. The impact assessment thinks it can get roughly £50 million over 10 years from enforcement. Like I say, every million counts, but that is very tiny compared with the challenge that the PSFA is trying to meet. Is that the sort of thing you are interested in?
Neil Coyle
Of course.
Joshua Reddaway: Secondly, I would suggest to them that they can establish a baseline, because this is pretty transparent within their published statistics. You have got a breakdown there of how much fraud is caused by people mis-stating their capital. The reason DWP is able to do that is because when you apply for a benefit, you do not have to provide your bank statements, but when you are subject to an inquiry that informs the statistics, you do have to provide your bank statements. The statistic is generated by the difference between those two processes. That will continue to be the case after this power is enacted.
Andrew Western
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I think that is a fair comment, given that I said it does not really deal with error. I was really referring to the enforcement powers under PSFA. I think PSFA do other stuff that is in the error space, but the enforcement stuff is not. The enforcement stuff for DWP also will not really be in the error space. However, you are quite right that any data matching is an opportunity to detect error, and DWP are used to that. For example, when they are doing targeted case reviews, that will be detecting error as well as fraud. What we know from the statistics is that DWP believes there is more fraud than error in that space, but I entirely accept the premise of your question, and I should have made that part clear.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: Ultimately, it allows us to operate immediately and with real clarity. We would be under the same kind of governance and restrictions as the police would be, in terms of having to go to a court to get those warrants, but, in terms of our ability to—
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of the allotted time. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
John Smart gave evidence.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: I think weeks is reasonable. A small number of weeks is a reasonable number to look for, rather than days or months. Months is far too long, and days is probably a little too short in relation to the ability of organisations to respond.
Andrew Western
Q
John Smart: At the risk of echoing what has been said before, I think it is critical that we modernise the approach to fraud, and the Bill is a good step towards that modernisation. The critical part of a lot of investigations now—and of identifying, preventing and detecting fraud—is the use of data. Getting that data and information quickly and effectively is critical. I think the Bill will go a long way towards speeding up and broadening the available information that can be used to prevent, detect and prosecute fraud. That is a really valuable thing that we should be pushing for, because relying on pieces of paper to seek information from organisations is crazy in this day and age, when you can do it electronically and get an answer relatively quickly. If you are turning up with a piece of paper, it can take weeks or months.
Rebecca Smith
Q
John Smart: Having worried about this for a number of years, I think there are a lot of steps that the Government—the PSFA—can take over time, but we are on a ladder to get to a position that is constantly moving because the fraudsters are developing all the time. One critical thing that I have been concerned about for a number of years is the use and sharing of data across Government. Government have so much data available to them, and third parties have a lot of data available to them. There is clearly a privacy question that rapidly comes into play, but from my perspective, if the data is available to Government, they should use it. They should use it proportionately: they should not exploit those powers to use that data on some sort of phishing trip, but if there is evidence that fraud is being or has been committed, getting that evidence in the hands of investigators quickly is critical to preventing the fraud from continuing and to identifying and recovering any money that has been lost. To my mind, there is quite a lot of work still to be done on data sharing across Government.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: Given that the eligibility verification measure is one of the more extensive powers in the Bill, we think that it may be appropriate to require the Minister to attest that its use is proportionate, as is required with the other measures in the Bill. That is just because of that particular power’s scale in requiring banks to share information on both potential fraud and potential error. As it includes the sharing of information of customers who may not be suspected of any crime whatsoever, we think that it would be helpful if the Government were to articulate that their use of the measure is proportionate, as is the case with the others.
It would also be helpful if the Bill were to replicate the very effective Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 exemption, which exists within the eligibility verification measure, in the other measures across parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. That is simply because we do not think that it is necessarily proportionate or helpful for banks to be considering, in complying with legislation, whether they should also be undertaking a suspicious activity report for the authorities. One of the constructive conversations that we have been having with Government is how we delineate our responsibilities to comply with this legislation and our responsibilities to comply with financial crime measures. We will be writing on this in more detail, but we suggest that the exemption under the eligibility verification measure, which is very helpful, should be replicated in other elements of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
Daniel Cichocki: We are making this suggestion because under the Bill banks responding to an information request or a direct deduction order, would have to consider whether there is some indication of financial crime that under POCA requires them to make a suspicious activity report. We think it is simpler to remove that requirement, not least because where there is a requirement to make a suspicious activity report there is a requirement to notify the authorities; clearly, there is already a notification to the authorities when complying with the measure. Removing that requirement would avoid the risk that banks must consider not only how to respond to the measure but whether they are required to treat that individual account as potentially fraudulent. We are trying to manage risk out of the system more broadly with financial crime compliance, so we think it is much more proportionate and effective to simply apply the same exemption across all the measures in the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
You briefly mentioned direct deduction orders. I know you have some concerns about the debt recovery power, and this is an opportunity for you to set them out. Is there anything you want to elaborate on beyond what you have just said about that element of the powers we are proposing?
Eric Leenders: There are two or three key areas for us. First is the affordability assessment. I think you have heard previously that the use of the standard financial statement would be helpful in outlining essential monthly expenditure. I will come back to that point.
Secondly, I believe the caps differ between the PSFA and the DWP. We think that they should be aligned, with the PFSA’s 40/20 split also applied to the DWP. It is also quite important that there is some form of de minimis, so that individuals do not find themselves without any funds whatsoever. Our thinking is something aligned to the £1,000 threshold that there is in Scotland. HMRC has a threshold of about £5,000, or £2,000 for partners paying child maintenance. We think there should be a floor, but more essential is consideration of one month’s essential expenditure. That would allow the individual to readjust their expenditure in the period when they need to consider making the payments under the deduction order, or indeed the period in which the balances are withdrawn.
Andrew Western
Q
Eric Leenders: We would like to consider a specific de minimis. There are probably two approaches: an absolute amount or a relative amount, dependent on the individual’s essential expenditure—not their lifestyle expenditure. That is why we feel that the standard financial statement would be a useful tool.
Siân Berry
Q
Going back to Daniel’s earlier comment, can you clarify that you do not yet have a clue regarding the volume of requests? Have you been given some sort of estimate by the Government?
Daniel Cichocki: Let me take that first. The Government set out two broad criteria pertaining to the eligibility verification measure: the capital check and the check against abroad fraud, through assessment of transactions abroad. It is difficult at this stage, because the industry has not undertaken any detailed collective analysis of the criteria against the current book of customers. That work has not yet been done. We anticipate it being done through the development of the code of practice, but key for us is understanding exactly what criteria we will be required to run, and then banks can start to build an assessment of how that looks against their current book. That detailed work has not yet taken place.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Ellen Lefley: Reassurance cannot be the word, unfortunately, given the moment we are in, which is one of increasing automation and increasing investment in data analytics and machine learning across government. Last month, I think, we had a Government statement about mainlining AI into the veins of the nation—that includes the public sector. Knowing that that is coming and having a clear focus on how the functions in the Bill will be operationalised need to be a key concern.
The preservation of human intervention in decision making might have been a statement that has been made, but it is not on the face of the Bill. Indeed, we need to remember that the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is also before Parliament, is removing the prohibition on fully automated decision making and profiling. That is happening concurrently with these powers. In addition, over the years, there have been numerous Horizon-like scandals that have happened in the benefits area. One, quite close to home in the Netherlands, was a childcare benefit scandal, which Committee members will know of. In that scandal, recipients of childcare benefit allowance in the Netherlands were subject to machine-learning algorithms that learnt to flag a fraud risk simply because of their dual nationality. So there is a problem here. Even with the powers that are subject to reasonable grounds, we need to have a wider discussion as to what reasonable means and what it definitely does not mean when we talk about reasonable grounds of suspicion, when suspicion is an exercise that is informed in a tech-assisted and technosocial decision-making environment.
Justice has some suggestions as to how reasonable grounds can be better glossed in the Bill in relation to generalisations and stereotypes that a certain type of person, simply because of their characteristics, is more likely to commit fraud than others. Perhaps it could be recorded in the Bill that that definitely is not reasonable.
Some useful wording from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice A is not in the Bill because it relates to the power to stop and search, which is not being given to DWP officers, probably rightly and proportionately, but some explicit paragraphs in the code of practice for stop and search for police officers say that they cannot stop and search someone based on their protected characteristics. Under the Equality Act 2010, they cannot exercise their discretion to stop and search someone due to generalisations and stereotypes about a certain type of person’s propensity to commit criminal activity. Amendments like those could strengthen the Bill against unreasonable, but perhaps not always detectable suspicions being imbued by machine-learning algorithms. Of course, if there will always be a human intervention in the decision-making process, perhaps that could be explicitly recorded in the Bill as well.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: They make up a larger number of the cohort, so we would analyse a prima facie indirect discrimination potential risk there, which would then need to be justified as being necessary and proportionate. The proportionality assessment of course is for Parliament, but we consider that a significant amount of scrutiny is required not only because of the privacy impacts, but because there is that clear indirect discrimination aspect. I am not alleging direct—
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: Raising the risk of indirect discrimination when you have cohorts of the population that are disproportionately reflected in any subcommunity of the population that will be exposed to any power is a relevant consideration, so yes in that respect. When it comes to the eligibility-verification measures, the proportionality analysis is, in our view, strained because there is not that threshold of reasonable suspicion. The mere fact that benefits recipients are in receipt of public funds makes them subject to this power. Of course, that could go further; all the public servants and MPs in this room are in receipt of public funds. If that is the threshold that we as a society are happy with, some real scrutiny of its proportionality is required, because it is a power that can require private financial information.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: When I speak about proportionality, the degree of loss is relevant, but there is no question but that the economic wellbeing of the country is a legitimate aim. On whether measures are proportionate to achieving that aim, we must consider not only whether there is any reasonable suspicion, but the degree of external oversight. The Bill includes that consideration, and there are various ways in which some of the powers are subject to independent review.
We have some suggestions as to how those independent review mechanisms can be a stronger safeguard and therefore make the measures more proportionate. For example, the independent review mechanisms seem to have the ability to access information but no power to demand it. That raises a query as to transparency and the full ability of the independent reviewer in different circumstances to meet their objectives. Also, when an independent reviewer lays their report before Parliament with recommendations and those recommendations are not going to be adopted, it might be helpful for there to be an obligation on the Department to provide reasons why not. That would be a more transparent way of ensuring that the oversight measure is as effective as intended.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Ellen Lefley: On the £35 billion figure, I think the benefits fraud and error figure was around £10 billion, and I think £7 billion can be shown to be fraud. I am sorry if I have got that wrong.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: I am grateful. It is a difficult one. For example, we could have almost zero crime in this country if everyone’s house had 24/7 surveillance installed. There will always be a way of decreasing privacy to increase state surveillance and therefore reduce unwanted behaviour, but the balance needs to be struck. Justice’s view is that when the state is getting new powers to investigate people’s private affairs, the balance is struck by having that reasonable suspicion threshold, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed. That ensures that the powers given to the state in any primary legislation are not open to abuse or arbitrariness. Of course, the laws in the statute book must be written narrowly so that they protect rights on the face of it, rather than being written broadly and relying on the self-restraint of future Administrations to exercise them proportionately.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Q
Ellen Lefley: We continue to have concerns, acknowledging that there are two key oversight mechanisms in the Bill that were not in the previous one: this independent reviewer role and the code of practice. It would be far easier for Justice, but more importantly for Parliament, to be assured of the proportionality of any human rights infringement if that code of practice were before us.
Paragraph 79 of the human rights memorandum to the Bill notes that the code of practice will significantly impact whether the EVN measures are proportionate and prevent arbitrary interference with people’s privacy. It would therefore be very helpful to see that detail in order for Parliament to be confident about the content of that code of practice and how these powers will actually be used.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: There will be case-by-case review, but you are right; it will be more, “Here is an issue that should be dealt with, and here’s how”.
Andrew Western
Q
Mark Cheeseman: My view is that the Bill does strike that balance, and it tries to strike the balance. It is difficult, because you need to balance the ability to take action against someone who has committed fraud against the state with having fair and reasonable processes for looking at someone who has not. The purpose of an investigation is not to find fraud; it is to find fact. That is why we have professionals who are trained and have a code of ethics around objectivity; their role is to find fact, not fraud. The Bill tries to strike that balance both by having authorised officers and by having the oversight that is in place. The Government structure, in having the counter-fraud profession, provides some of that as well. My view of the Bill is that there is a fair amount of independent oversight—that is a good thing—to increase how well things are done.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Of course. When we estimate fraud, we estimate fraud and error, as the NAO has done. The NAO used the methodology that we have used previously. We have not repeated that yet, because it has gone ahead of us in the cycle. I have no reason to indicate that its estimate is incorrect, but that is its estimate, and Joshua was here earlier.
We estimate fraud and error as a whole, rather than fraud separately, but what we have seen in the fraud data is that detected fraud in the public sector has risen over the past few years. We have published that. Some was due to covid, but some is in other spaces. Earlier witnesses indicated that the threat has risen and that there are some changes in the perception of fraud and of how people may approach it.
My perspective is that the level of fraud and error in the system is high. There is waste there, and Parliament itself has challenged the Government on what more they can do to deal with it. The threat is rising, and therefore in my position, I think that the powers will help to take action on that. There is more to do to drive down waste and to reduce fraud in the system.
Rebecca Smith
Particularly in relation to bank account details and information on spending, and that sort of thing, which you just used as an example.
Jasleen Chaggar: On the eligibility verification measures—what we are calling the bank spying powers—we are recommending that they be removed in their entirety. They really are unprecedented financial surveillance powers. There are no other laws like this in this country. The powers would permit generalised mass surveillance of everybody’s bank accounts. It is not just benefits claimants who will be targeted; it is everyone’s accounts, including yours and mine. They will be scanned using algorithmic software to make sure that the eligibility indicators are not met. Even if you are a benefits recipient, you can appoint an individual—a parent, a guardian, an appointed person or your landlord—to receive the benefit on your behalf, so those people will also be pulled into the net of surveillance. We do not really see a way in which these measures could ever be proportionate.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: What is really important about the Bill is the conflation of fraud and error. It is not just people suspected of serious crime, or even low-level crime, who are pulled into the net of surveillance. It is also people who, while navigating the complexities of the benefits system, may have found themselves on the wrong side of making a benefits claim and made a mistake. It also involves DWP’s own errors, which make up one in 10 errors. What is critical when we are thinking about the Bill is that it is suspicionless surveillance that applies to everyone.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: There is another difference between HMRC recovering money and the DWP recovering money. When you think about the types of individuals these powers will be recovering money from, they are among some of the most vulnerable in our society. There are people living on the breadline, disabled people, elderly people and carers, who will all be dragged into this surveillance. The risk of errors caused by the automated system that is proposed will, therefore, have a dispro- portionate effect on those groups of people. There is a difference, if that is the case, between the powers being used by HMRC and the DWP.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I am not aware of powers that are similar to eligibility verification notices that are exercised by the DWP. I am aware that they have similar powers in relation to direct deduction orders, and maybe that is the distinction that the witnesses earlier were making.
Andrew Western
Q
You talk about the inclusion of error, as well as fraud, in what we are attempting to do here. Do you accept that there is the potential, through the effective use of the eligibility verification measure, to detect overpayments through error sooner, thereby reducing any overpayment because it would come to light earlier?
Jasleen Chaggar: Yes, and to stop people getting into debt is an incredibly laudable aim. The question is whether we are willing to infringe the privacy rights of the entirety of the population to do that. Perhaps a more proportionate solution would be to make it easier for those benefits claimants who are making mistakes to navigate the system in the first place.
Coming back to your previous point, if you were happy to send me information about those powers, I would be happy to get back to you with our position on those.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I accept that the Government are purporting that this is a sufficient safeguard, but I propose that it is not, because of that circularity.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: Absolutely. We believe as much as anyone that fraud and error need to be tackled in this country. Our position is that the best way to do that is through intelligence-led policing, where there is suspicion of fraud and not just of error, that is well resourced. In relation to error, as I have said, we think that making the benefits system easier to navigate in the first place, and the DWP getting its own house in order to avoid its own errors, are far better, more proportionate and privacy-preserving solutions than the ones proposed in the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I think that it is important that suspicion has already arisen before those policing powers can be enacted. The police already have powers to request that granular financial information where there is suspicion of fraud.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I think that there are ways to address this. We are a civil liberties organisation, and our job is to be a watchdog and to ensure that privacy rights are preserved. I do not have a solution for how the police should find out whether someone is suspicious, but we should not sacrifice the privacy rights of us all just to find out whether we should be suspicious of someone when no suspicion exists. As I said, it is a disproportionate power.
Siân Berry
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: Our view is that the powers will only ever be proportionate if they uphold the presumption of innocence, due process and judicial oversight, and any privacy infringements are set out in law and are necessary and proportionate. We feel that a code of conduct would be insufficient, because it would just defer those legal protections to some other time. Also, if an individual has a problem as a result of the use of the powers, they are unable to enforce their rights through a code of conduct. Setting out the protections in legislation would create a far more rights-preserving framework, with which we would definitely feel more comfortable.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Geoff Fimister: I should say, first of all, that the Campaign for Disability Justice was launched relatively recently—a few months ago—by Inclusion Barnet. We now have a substantial number of individuals—several hundred—supporting us, as well as a substantial number of organisations, ranging from large charities to grassroots disabled people’s organisations, so we get quite a lot of feedback.
I suppose our concern with the Bill include a broad aspect, but also a very specific aspect as to how it may impact disabled people. The broad aspect is that, because it focuses very much on means-tested benefits, it will, by definition, disproportionately affect people on low incomes, and disproportionately affect disabled people, because they are more likely to be on low incomes than others.
The practical issue, which I think has attracted the most concern, from the conversations I have had, is false positives, as the previous witness, Jasleen Chaggar, mentioned. We are all familiar with a world in which we have problems with malfunctioning technology. Every few months, my internet provider locks my inbox because of “suspicious activities”, which have included sending an email to an MP’s researcher or one to Mencap. Every now and then, my bank freezes my wife’s and my bank accounts because of “suspicious activity”, such as, on one occasion, purchasing a sandwich from a Marks and Spencer in Deptford.
That might sound entertaining, but it is a serious business; this tech goes wrong, and I think the previous witness made the point that, if large numbers of people are embraced by this kind of trawl, it will go wrong for a percentage of them. We do not know whether that will be a large or a small percentage, but even a small percentage of a big number is a lot of people. People being left without any income if technology triggers the cessation of their benefit is a serious business. Not having any income can cause hardship, debt and stress. In extreme cases, there can be serious health and safety issues. Disabled people are concerned about that kind of eventuality.
As to what we can do about it, I understand the thrust of the Bill and where it is coming from. In parliamentary terms, it has widespread backing, although a number of reservations have been expressed. We would like to see some sort of safeguard whereby benefits could not be stopped unless and until it was established that there was an overpayment—not that the DWP thinks that there might have been because the tech spotted something. We do not want to see a “shoot first and ask questions” later approach. If we could have some protection along those lines, that would be helpful.
Rick Burgess: I stress that I am from the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. The panel is something we do, but I am not speaking in that role today.
There are particular worries about how this affects people living with mental distress, particularly those with diagnoses of paranoia, schizophrenia, depression or anxiety. This adds to the feeling of being monitored, followed and surveilled, because you literally are being surveilled by your bank on behalf of the Government. So it will necessarily reduce the wellbeing of disabled people who are claiming benefits that are monitored by the system. There is no getting away from that.
On the potential risks, when you enter a trawling operation, you are not targeting it in any way; you are simply looking at everyone. So the error rate becomes extremely important. We do not know exactly what the technology is. We have not seen the equality impact assessment, but even if it had a failure rate of 0.1%, which would be a quite respectable systemic failure rate—it is pretty acceptable in a lot of these areas—that is still 1,000 people per million scanned. If you are talking about even the means-tested benefits, that is going to run to thousands of people getting false positives. If you think about the entire DWP caseload, which is 22.6 million people, that is over 22,000 people. Bearing in mind that the Post Office scandal involved fewer than 1,000 people, you are at the inception stage of something that could be the greatest miscarriage of justice in British history, if you go ahead with this with untested technology that has not had proper impact assessments.
I stress, though, that we are against this measure in its totality because it treats disabled people as a separate population who should have lower privacy rights than the general population. In that respect, given that the United Nations has condemned the UK twice in a row for grave and systemic human rights abuses, this is going further in the wrong direction and failing to address the failures identified by the UN. It is further marking disabled people for additional state oppression and surveillance, which, as I said, will necessarily be harmful to a great many of the people under the surveillance regime.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: Because we are over-represented in those classes. If you choose to target it at those cohorts, you are accepting an additional level of targeting towards disabled people, which is discriminatory.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: I think it does edge into that. There is certainly established thinking and case law that begins to establish that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission need to be brought into this urgently. There need to be public and transparent equality impact assessments, because I do not see how this does not breach a right to privacy and represent discrimination against groups who are over-represented in these cohorts.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: It is about where that measure is one of a number of additional enforcement measures, rules or laws that would have negative consequences. The key to this is the trawling nature of the technology; it is not targeted, beyond being aimed at everyone on UC, everyone on ESA and so on. When you trawl, you do not target, and then you have a huge cohort. If, in that cohort, you have over-representation, without even thinking about it, you have then enacted a level of discrimination, because of the trawling nature of this approach.
If this approach applied to everybody on benefits, that would also be slightly questionable, because you are applying a different level of privacy to people who get an award from the DWP versus people who do not. If it applied to the whole country, I suppose that would be fairer in one respect, but it would also be a breach of everyone’s privacy, which goes to another question.
In terms of this measure being important for Government revenue, the amount lost to the tax gap is more than four times more—we are talking about £9.1 billion, but the tax gap is over £39 billion. You would recover more money if you subjected the whole country to this measure, but I would suggest that the reason you do not subject the whole country to it is that there would be outrage, because people would find their rights to privacy being completely abused.
Applying this measure in these targeted ways suggests a level of, “Well, these are people who perhaps have less rights to privacy than the general population.” If you are happy to have your bank account monitored in this way, fine, but you have not suggested that this should apply to the general population. You have suggested that it should apply to a population who receive benefits, and within that population there is an over-representation of disabled people, who are already exhaustively monitored, reviewed and tested and having to provide proof, whether that is for a blue badge, personal independence payment, ESA, universal credit or a concessionary pass on public transport.
The life of a disabled person is to be constantly tested and examined and having to produce proof, and this is another step in that. That is why this is germane to the United Nations report on the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We have continued down the road of removing rights, not respecting them, and of subjecting disabled people to greater scrutiny, greater surveillance and greater tests of their basic rights to be a citizen of this country. It is really quite distressing for disabled people to be in this position.
Not only have we had two really damning reports from the United Nations, but the new Government is actually adopting old policies of the previous Government and continuing on that road. The level of anger and distress in the disabled community is absolutely enormous. It is really difficult to explain to people that this is not an obvious attack, or one motivated by ableist assumptions about how disabled people run their lives or whether they are more or less honest, or more or less genuine, than people who are not disabled. It is really hard going for us—I have to tell you that. Disabled people in Britain have had a decade and a half of being the scapegoat of this country, and it has to stop. This measure is actually making it worse, as opposed to stopping that scapegoating.
Geoff Fimister: I just want to add something to a point that Rick made. We both made the point that the discriminatory aspect relating to disabled people arises, in the immediate sense, from the fact that these means-tested benefits are primarily in scope at the moment, and disabled people are disproportionately likely to be on low incomes. It is worth adding that if this measure were to be extended at a future stage to a wider range of benefits, potentially bringing disability benefits into scope, that would be even more sharp discrimination against disabled people.
They are not theoretical points that Rick has been making—there is a really raw feeling among disabled people that they are being targeted. In the context of quite a lot of negative media publicity around the interface between employment and unemployment among disabled people, there is an unpleasant atmosphere for disabled people. That is certainly the feedback that we are getting.
Andrew Western
I will not ask any more questions, but I just say to Rick that I think it might be helpful for a follow-up conversation to take place. Without wishing to get into a protracted argument, there were some things that I did not recognise as part of the Bill, but clearly that is how people are feeling and how the people you represent are feeling. I am very happy to ask officials to pick up a conversation to go through the detail.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the panel for their evidence, which was robustly delivered.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Western and Georgia Gould gave evidence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government keep the rates of benefits, state pensions and statutory pay under regular review. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced to Parliament on 30 October that, subject to parliamentary approval, parental pay will increase in line with the consumer prices index at the rate of 1.7% from April 2025.
Alistair Strathern
The Government’s upcoming review of parental leave entitlement is really important as the UK currently has among the worst paternity leave in Europe. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted not just the growth benefit of greater paternity leave entitlements but the benefit to workforce involvement, so will the Minister meet me and campaigners from the Dad Shift to ensure we are making the most of the opportunity to get people back into work?
Andrew Western
We value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and in supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paid paternity leave, play a key role in their ability to do that. My hon. Friend is right to cite the planned parental leave review. That is being led by colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, and I will write to them on his behalf to suggest a meeting.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The CMS modernisation programme delivers increasingly effective and efficient services. The programme has transformed customer interaction with the CMS, providing customers the choice to make contact digitally. Those efficiencies make it easier for customers to report changes and non-payment, so CMS caseworkers can focus on the collection of unpaid child maintenance.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I have multiple casework examples from constituents in Huntingdon who have been impacted by CMS inefficiencies, including incorrectly calculated arrears with no explanation of how the sums have been calculated, and failure to verify the location of fathers who are not providing financial support, with the CMS claiming that addresses needed to be independently verified but not conducting that verification itself. Such cases have resulted in consolatory payments from the CMS for maladministration and service delays. In all instances, my constituents have been frustrated by their inability to contact the CMS over the phone. In the quarter ending September 2024, 41% of calls to the Child Maintenance Service were not answered. What are the Government doing to improve contact with the CMS by telephone?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear of those specific examples. I will take away the point about telephone communication and come back to the hon. Gentleman, but it may be worth our having a broader conversation about his concerns. I will happily meet him to discuss any of the specifics of the cases he cited.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In response to a number inquiries that I have had from constituents over the last couple of months, will the Minister say whether reforms to the Child Maintenance Service will include consideration of the paying parent’s capital assets and voluntary pension payments when calculating the rate at which unpaid payments should be made?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be aware of the recent consultation on the future administration and operation of the Child Maintenance Service. I do not want to prejudge the decisions that will follow as a result of that consultation, but I can tell him that we are considering the next steps at present, and I will update him and the House in due course.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is now nine years since the Scotland Act 2016 transferred a swathe of welfare powers to the Scottish Government. Are Ministers in a position to give a finite date by which the Scottish Government will actually have taken on all those powers and responsibilities? That is still not the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, a number of benefits are currently delivered under agency agreements. It is very much for the Scottish Government to broker a conversation with us about either extending those agreements or bringing them to an early conclusion. I am yet to have any such conversations, but should I have any, I will be very happy to let him know.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The assessment I have made is of a trend that is up, up, up after 14 years of the Conservative party failing to act. We lost £9.7 billion in fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions last year, and we have lost £35 billion since the pandemic. That is too much, which is why I hope colleagues will support the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill on Second Reading later.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hundreds of farmers and other small business owners in Westmorland who earn less than the minimum wage are not eligible for universal credit because of the failure of that system to take account of variability of income. Will the Minister look to put that right so that we can support the people who support us?
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
During covid, assessments for personal independence payments were moved either online or to over the phone. Today less than 5% of those assessments have returned to face-to-face, so what assessment have Ministers made of that change and are there any links with the rise in fraud?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to identify that in the PIP space the Department has introduced a blend of phone, video and face-to-face assessments with the aim of delivering a more efficient and user-centred service. Since telephone and video assessments have been introduced there has been no evidence to suggest that these delivery channels are less effective than face-to-face assessments in detecting fraudulent claims. In 2023-24, PIP overpayments accounted for just 0.4% of the DWP’s overall spend on PIP but I assure my hon. Friend we will keep a close eye on that.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Marie Curie research has found that 15% of the three quarters of a million end-of-life carers are living below the poverty line, rising to 22% a year after bereavement. Given these statistics, will the Minister consider extending the time that carers can claim carer’s allowance from two months to six months after bereavement?
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Andrew Western ExcerptsMonday 3rd February 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to comment on a number of speeches that have been made. As the Scottish National party tabled a reasoned amendment, which unfortunately did not get selected, it will not surprise anyone that we have a number of significant problems with the Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill relates to recovering the covid moneys and the services and goods that the Government received that were substandard, for which organisations need to pay the Government back. Since its scope does not extend to Scotland, I will not add many comments, except to note that I have a long track record of bringing up covid fraud, particularly PPE frauds, in this Chamber. I will support the Government’s work to recoup the money that was fraudulently taken in Government contracts that did not deliver.
I oppose the DWP elements of the Bill, which are not what social security should be about. As my friend, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), said, the social security system should be built on dignity and respect. Very few Members have said that we should have a social security system that works. Members have talked about tightening up eligibility criteria. Last week, people talked about the number of scroungers that there are—people not in work who are claiming social security benefits—and how desperately we must get them back to work. People should have opportunities, but it is also important that we have a social security system that catches people and supports them when they are not able to access those opportunities, because they are struggling with their physical or mental health or have learning difficulties. We need a social security system that works.
I have asked the Minister on a couple of occasions about co-production, which an hon. Member also mentioned. Co-production is needed when it comes to changes to disability benefits. If the Government are to reduce the amount of money being paid out for disability and sickness benefits, they must work hand in hand with disabled people. They must not just say, “We are going to reduce it by this amount.” They need to sit round the table with disabled people to have those conversations and to make clear what changes they want.
In Scotland, we have reformed the previous PIP system to create the adult disability payment and child disability payment. I used to get a number of emails and people walking through my door who were terrified about their upcoming PIP assessment—having to fill in those forms again, and sit and write a long list of the normal things that their child cannot do, on an annual basis. We have changed that in Scotland. We do not have regular assessments. If someone has a longer-term condition, they do not have to go through that awful situation on an annual basis. The Government need to focus on dignity, respect and co-production. That should be way ahead of conversations around fraud.
It is important that the social security system, the procurement system and the tax system do not propagate fraud. As has been mentioned a number of times by Members from across the Chamber, the tax system creates a huge amount more fraud and a huge amount more could be recouped from that than from the social security system.
I have major concerns about how the Government are approaching the issue. Why are they introducing this Bill before the child poverty strategy? Why is this more of a priority than cancelling the two-child cap and taking kids out of poverty? Why are the Government talking about nearly £10 billion a year owed to the DWP? Just to be clear, that is not what they intend to recoup. According to the impact assessment, at least 30% will be written off, so £10 billion is a misleading figure. It might be the total amount of fraud and error, but it is not what the Government expect to get back. It does not take into account that they will spend £420 million over the next few years just to increase the number of staff or the costs of the eligibility criteria. It is also not a net figure—it is just the headline figure right now. All the work being done on the legislation is to recoup a fairly insignificant amount of money, but it will put people through absolute hell.
As has been said, the Bill will treat people as guilty rather than begin from the point of view that they are innocent. Potentially, it will put every person applying for benefits through an eligibility check through their bank. It will put them under surveillance in a way that is not compatible with the human rights that we should all expect. Let us remember that we are talking about people who, in some cases, are incredibly vulnerable, and may have their driving licence taken away.
The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about two of his constituents who found themselves in a difficult situation and who did not have a huge amount of literacy. It is possible that one of those people could have had a driving licence. For disabled people, a car can be an lifeline—the most important thing. For people with mental health problems, opening letters can be really difficult. People might not engage with the DWP through no fault of their own, but because they are not getting the mental health support that they need.
That £10 billion or however much will be recouped will not fix mental health services to ensure that everyone is capable of getting up in the morning, having their breakfast, having a shower and opening the letters in scary, big writing that have come through the door. It will not ensure that people can engage in that system. It will not teach them to read and write—they may not be capable of that. I share the concerns of other Members that, for some individuals, the powers of recouping and of revoking a driving licence are entirely inappropriate. We have not had enough reassurances on that.
My concerns about the Information Commissioner are still extant. The Secretary of State said that she has had a letter from the Information Commissioner. I understand that it is probably not her fault, but I am really disappointed that we have not seen that letter in advance of today—[Interruption.] I am being told that it is being published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is on the ICO website.
Kirsty Blackman
Unfortunately, I have not seen it because I was not aware of its publication until the Secretary of State stood on her feet. It would have been helpful for Members to have been given that information beforehand, so that we could have read the Information Commissioner’s comments in advance of Second Reading, given a number of us have mentioned the significant concerns of the Information Commissioner in relation to the previous Bill.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill is tough and fair. Another Member talked about tax and benefit fraud, and the issue with the DWP making overpayments. They suggested that this new system will ensure that overpayments are caught earlier. I suggest that that is a tad over-optimistic. The DWP makes mistakes and makes overpayments, and now we are giving it another place to make errors. The DWP can now see into people’s bank accounts and say, “You don’t meet the eligibility criteria, so you won’t be getting the social security payment.” Until we have built up much a higher level of trust, most people will assume that these powers will create more errors in the system, rather than reduce them.
Lastly, on a subject that I mentioned earlier, a massive number of disabled people have no trust in the social security system. They are massively concerned about the cuts coming down the line and concerned in particular that they will bear the brunt of those cuts, given the comments from so many politicians, using the word “scroungers” and talking about people fraudulently claiming benefits.
Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) very helpfully laid out the figures on every pound claimed fraudulently, which I genuinely thought was very helpful, disabled people feel that they are being lumped in with the entire group of people claiming fraudulently—whether they can or cannot work, whether they are being paid universal credit or PIP to assist them with their work, and whether they have a helpful employer or have not been able to find one.
People feel they are being demonised by politicians simply for claiming social security, which they are entitled to. Until that trust is rebuilt, making the decision to look at their bank accounts, as in these measures, is the absolute wrong decision. The Government need to do what they can to put dignity and respect at the heart of the social security system and rebuild people’s trust in it before they introduce these sweeping, disproportionate powers.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the fact that there are so many unclaimed benefits. Surely ensuring that people have the money they are entitled to, ensuring that they have enough to live on, reducing child poverty and ensuring that not one child grows up in poverty should be more of a priority for the Government than introducing eligibility criteria and demanding that banks provide financial information on social security claimants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I hope that the House will bear with me; I have binned my original closing speech, given the number of contributions that we have heard, and some of the legitimate questions and concerns that colleagues have set out. I thank those colleagues who rightly highlighted the scale of the challenge, and why the Government must act to tackle fraud against the public sector. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) all set out the scale of the challenge, and the views of their constituents on this issue, in very robust terms.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about the risk of unintended consequences, particularly on the issue of violence against women and girls. We are looking at that closely and will continue to do so. A number of Members referred to the alleged lack of an impact assessment, or the publication of one. An impact assessment has been published, alongside the view of the Regulatory Policy Committee, and is available for colleagues to view.
Let me turn to specific concerns about the Bill, starting with those of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I welcome the tone of the Conservatives, and their broad support for a number of the principles in the Bill. She is correct that it is incumbent on the state to get its money back. It is part of the unwritten contract that she referred to. I felt there was a slightly tenuous justification for the escalation in benefit fraud that we have seen in recent years: the war in Ukraine. I know that we are happy to blame Putin for many things, but that was a new one on me. She rightly pointed to an escalation in benefit fraud and error as a result of covid, but that does not explain why the level of fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions was higher in 2023-24 than in any of the years from 2021-22 onwards—£9.7 billion last year, a record level. The issue is getting worse, not better, and that happened on the Conservatives’ watch.
The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the contents of the Conservatives’ fraud plan would have solved all these problems, and that we are copying much of what was in it. It is fair to say that the Conservative party legislated only on the third-party data measure in that plan. The Conservatives never mentioned debt recovery powers, and made no efforts to get a grip on public sector fraud with the new powers that we are introducing by putting the PSFA on a statutory footing. Overall, their appalling record hardly comes as a surprise.
The shadow Secretary of State went on to say that she was concerned about the amount of information being shared by banks. Just to be clear, we will not be sharing any information with banks. The information that will come back to us will have very strict criteria, and we are taking a specific power to fine banks for oversharing information that is out of scope. She asked what testing has been done on this; two trials have been undertaken, so we know that the proposal will work, as it pertains to the eligibility verification measure.
The shadow Secretary of State went on, with some audacity, in my view, to challenge whether the debt recovery powers go far enough—powers that the Conservative party refused to take, and never put forward when they were in government. She mentioned the number of AI schemes that have been set aside. Test and learn is perfectly normal in the AI space. I remind her that some of the schemes that had not been taken forward are now moving through under different names. She mentioned the PSFA, and raised concerns about the right to compel information. The powers have independent oversight to ensure that their use is proportionate, so although no organisations are exempt, all actions are considered within a robust legal framework.
We then heard from the Conservatives, astonishingly, that there is nothing in the Bill to get a grip on the benefits bill. What cheek, when the benefits bill spiralled by some £20 billion on their watch! As for their so-called plan, I remind the shadow Secretary of State that they made a hash of it and that we lost a judicial review on their failed plan just a few weeks ago, so we will take our time to bring forward the proposals and will consult on them, and we will get this right.
I am grateful for the support of the Conservatives, but I hope that it will manifest itself in the voting Lobby later because, with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who I believe is the Parliamentary Private Secretary, we have not had a full speech from a single Conservative Member—just one intervention. If that does not show the lack of seriousness with which they take this issue, the appalling record and position we have inherited should do just that.
I want to spend a little time on the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a champion for vulnerable people. I particularly want to speak to the measures we are taking to assure ourselves of the appropriate support for vulnerable people, both within the scope of the Bill and more generally, because that is important and relates to a number of comments from Members. It is always the Department’s priority to set repayment plans that are affordable and sustainable; that we make use of the debt respite service, Breathing Space, which allows for a temporary protection from creditors; and that we provide additional support to help customers manage their money. We work with the Money and Pensions Service under its brand name “Moneyhelper”, which offers free, independent and impartial money and debt advice. Indebted customers are routinely offered a referral, with the majority who meet the criteria taking up that offer.
In addition, a DWP debt management vulnerability framework has recently been introduced to provide guidance for advisers on how to support customers at risk of becoming vulnerable, including signposting to specialist support. That is embedded across debt management, and part of that involves advisers undertaking annual refresher training on identifying and supporting customers experiencing vulnerability. Within the scope of the Bill, it is important to recognise that the power of debt recovery will not be used on benefit claimants. It extends only to those who receive their income through means other than benefits or through payrolled employment.
There are also important safeguards in the Bill that govern the process of debt recovery and the new enforcement powers. There will be repeated efforts at contact before any enforcement action is taken, and there will be affordability checks before any deductions are taken from bank accounts. There will be limits on the size of those deductions, a right to require deduction orders and a right to appeal deduction orders beyond that. Also, the DWP can vary or suspend the deduction order following a change in circumstances.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that the Government have made changes around affordability, but they still do not assess either benefit clawbacks or the deductions on the basis of whether they are actually affordable for the people having to pay them back. Are the Government planning to put that in place at some point in future?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I have not understood her correctly, but there is specific provision in the Bill on the debt recovery powers to limit the amount that can be clawed back to 40% of anybody’s capital, but if I have misunderstood that, I am happy to have a conversation with her afterwards. I hope that I have set out some of the steps we are taking in the Bill and more broadly to ensure support for vulnerable people.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), was right to highlight the scale of covid fraud and the lack of safeguards in place to protect the public purse. He highlighted the carer’s allowance review, which will report this summer, not next, but we are already learning the lessons of that. Much like the proposals in the Bill, data is key, so we have secured funding to extend the verify earnings and pensions service system of alerts from HMRC to 100% of claims. We will ensure in this Bill that the eligibility verification measure information is processed quickly to reduce large overpayments, and to avoid a repeat of what happened on the last Government’s watch with carer’s allowance.
The hon. Member for Torbay raised the use of AI, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. There will always be a human decision maker on each of these powers, so where decisions are made, a human—not AI—will make that call. For EVM, a flag would be passed to a human to establish benefit eligibility. For debt recovery, it would be passed to a human to assess vulnerability and the ability to pay. For information gathering, it would be passed to a human for investigation where there is a suspicion of fraud. For search and seizure, a warrant would be granted by a judge. At all times, a human is making those decisions, as is right and proper, given the powers that we are talking about.
According to the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, there is no doubt that had the Conservatives had longer, their policies would have driven fraud down further and faster than our proposals will. Thankfully, we do not have the opportunity to test that theory. Given their appalling record—with fraud and error escalating every year since the pandemic and standing at £9.7 billion last year—I dread to think what they would have done when they turned their attention to these matters.
The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire went on to ask whether the independent person would report on the use of powers. Yes, and those reports—on both the PSFA side and the DWP side—will be placed before Parliament annually. He asked about non-drivers and the point of suspending licences when not everybody drives. Well, short of taking the power to prevent somebody from walking, I fail to see how much further we could have gone in that regard. However, I recognise—as I hope he does—that that is only one of a suite of measures that we are considering to move us forward in the powers available to us.
Of course, it is important to recognise that the introduction of an independent person was not considered necessary by the Conservative Government in the third-party data measures that they proposed under their Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We are introducing that measure not just for the PSFA powers or the eligibility verification measures, but for information-gathering powers and powers of search and seizure.
I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is concerned, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is conservative to want to tackle benefit fraud, and that we should ignore the £7.4 billion-worth of welfare fraud last year. I certainly do not think that it is conservative to go after public sector fraud; in fact, if it were slightly more conservative, we might not be in the terrible position we are in now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) raised a number of important questions. Time prevents me from running through them all now, but I would be delighted to meet him to discuss them further. I was especially concerned by the case that he raised. One potential benefit of the eligibility verification measure is that it will allow us to detect overpayments earlier, but clearly we want to ensure that the DWP is handling such issues correctly first time. The ICO was mentioned by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend. Just to clear that up, it was not a letter received into the Department; the ICO published on its website today its findings and thoughts on the Bill at this stage. It recognises the steps that we have taken on proportionality, and I welcome those comments.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) has concerns about banks and the potential erosion of data protection powers—that is not my view. The Bill will involve very limited data sharing. The Department for Work and Pensions is not monitoring accounts, and we will fine banks if they overshare in that space.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made an important contribution. To clarify, the Bill is not predicated on saving £10 billion in welfare fraud; it sets out to save £1.5 billion over five years, but it is part of overall measures to save £8.6 billion over that period, because we do not accept the level of fraud in the system at present.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) suggested that the Bill subjects millions of people to unwarranted financial surveillance. To give Members absolute clarity, we will not receive transactional information from banks, we will not look in bank accounts directly, and we will not ask banks to take decisions on whether somebody has committed fraud.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised the question of clause 50 on the PSFA side of the Bill and asked what constitutes fraud. For clarity, it is standard for powers to be taken by the Secretary of State—or a Minister in this case—but in practice, qualified and experienced decision makers will consider cases as authorised officers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to raise clause 91 and the removal of driving licences. I would gently say to him that this is an existing power held by the Child Maintenance Service. The question of liable persons and whether removal is proportionate would be a matter for a judge; it would only happen after repeated attempts to secure repayment, and before any disqualification occurs, an individual will always be given the opportunity to agree a repayment plan. This is a power of last resort, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he has specific concerns about the pursuit of fraud in Northern Ireland, I am happy to follow them up.
As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke from the heart about the plight of his constituents and the challenges they face. I want to assure him that this is not a Bill that is intended to focus on the low-hanging fruit of vulnerable people; that is why it includes some of the protections I set out earlier, and it is why we are putting in place independent oversight for the debt recovery and eligibility verification measures. He asked about the right of appeal, and I can confirm that the rights of review and of appeal against a ruling in the debt recovery space are written into the Bill.
The important question of appointees is one that I want to address directly, given the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about his constituent’s sister. To be very clear, that is something we had significant concerns about after the previous introduction of the third-party data measure, and the system will remove appointees. There may be circumstances in which those bank accounts need to be checked if the appointee receives benefits themselves, but if they do not, they will be screened out.
Kirsty Blackman
The individuals who are going to do the independent assessment will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it not be better for Parliament to agree the appointment of those individuals, so that we can be assured that they are actually independent?
Andrew Western
Clearly, we will inform Parliament as to who that will be, but we will go through a proper recruitment process. If the hon. Lady is talking about the independent person to be appointed for the eligibility verification measures, we will go through a thorough recruitment process to ensure they have the expertise needed. They will report every year to Parliament, and it is right and appropriate that they do so.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his support for part 1 of the Bill, but I understand his concerns about the powers as they pertain to the Department for Work and Pensions. One of his principal concerns was about banks perhaps being unable to exercise those powers appropriately; what we are proposing is not intended as a decision-making action, but as a data push. Banks will not make decisions—a human within the DWP will carry out that investigation. He has raised concerns about potential errors in the system, and to be clear, we acknowledge that this is a new power. We intend to scale it up in a “test and learn” phase, doing so gradually so that we can get it right, but we simply cannot ignore the problem and not look to take these powers when we had a £7.4 billion problem with fraud in the DWP last year.
Turning to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), I think I have already dealt with the issue of carer’s allowance overpayments and how we are starting to put that right. To clarify again, we are not accessing bank accounts; banks will be doing that for us, but they will not be taking decisions as to somebody’s benefit eligibility. The hon. Gentleman said that we should look at the efficacy of existing powers to request information. We are doing that through the updating of information-gathering powers and the right to compel information digitally. We will be moving to a list of excluded organisations, rather than a list of organisations from which we are able to compel information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) raised a series of concerns, which I know come from a good place. I am very happy to meet her to discuss some of these powers—it is important that we get this right—but on the particular question of the legal advice and article 8, although she is correct that Big Brother Watch did commission some legal opinion, we are confident that the powers in the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are different powers, distinct from the third-party data powers put forward as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and we do think that they are compatible with the ECHR, including the right to a private life under article 8. That is specifically because the third-party data elements are now narrower, and because we have included the safeguards that I have set out. We think the measures are justified in accordance with the law and are proportionate.
The final speech was from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). Again, I felt it was constructive, if slightly fantastical at points, and I may disagree about the extent to which the Conservatives had more sensible plans that have since been abandoned by this Government. On the question of public sector fraud, I note that she pointed to action to be taken to try to claw back public money. Can I suggest to her that they seek to put that in a press release? If they are not enough of a laughing stock because of their previous behaviour, they would be after seeking to claim that they had a positive story to tell in that space.
I will finish by reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: whoever you are—big businesses, covid fraudsters, organised criminal gangs seeking to defraud the system or individuals knowingly cheating on their benefits—it is not acceptable. We have a major problem, and we are taking the powers needed to act.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Adoptive Parents: Financial Support
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank all who have taken part in the discussion for their thoughtful and incisive comments.
As the hon. Lady said, I recently received a written question from her about this issue, and I commend her for her continued support and campaigning in this crucial area. Becoming an adoptive parent is, of course, rewarding, but it is without doubt challenging too. It is admirable when anybody steps up to that role, let alone those who do so while in work. The Government do not underestimate the life-changing difference that adoptive parents up and down the country make every single day.
Breaking down barriers to opportunity is one of this Government’s key missions for the country. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure employed parents can balance their work and home lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure there is more flexibility and support for working families, and our reforms to get Britain working include transforming employment support so that people with specific barriers to work, such as parents, receive personalised help to overcome the particular hurdles they face. That not only supports our No. 1 mission—to drive growth in every corner of the country—but creates a cycle of opportunity. People cannot fulfil their potential if they are struggling to afford life’s essentials, but good work brings security and dignity. That is why good work will always be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and supporting families.
Children cannot fulfil their potential if they grow up in poverty in any familial setting, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country if the next generation is held back. That is why we have already started the urgent work needed to get the child poverty taskforce up and running. It is working to publish a comprehensive and ambitious child poverty strategy that will consider all children across the United Kingdom, whether in care, adopted or living with birth parents.
It is worth reiterating that maternity payments such as statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are intended to protect the health and wellbeing of women and their babies, rather than to assist with the costs associated with a new child. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is specifically raising the issue of adoptive parents. When a family welcomes a new child into their world, it is only right that they have the time to bond—a point that the hon. Lady made eloquently in introducing the debate, and that all hon. Members reiterated.
It was genuinely important to hear about Kirsty’s experience of thinking about adopting a second child—an “assistant train driver”. She is one of the many people who are having to make very difficult choices. I have constituents in a similar position, and it is incredibly important that we hear such testimony when considering these issues.
The hon. Lady also highlighted that there is no guarantee on the means-tested local authority payments, as was reiterated by the shadow Minister, and that many councils do not have policies for that, before going on to set out that adoption saves the economy £4.2 billion a year. She, like myself, is a former senior local authority leader in Manchester. Having been deputy leader of Stockport council, she knows not only of the benefits of adoption for education and health, but of the many pressures within the local authority care system and the fact that secure, permanent placements are the best thing for the child. That support is priceless, and I think we are all agreed on that today.
The hon. Lady went on to say that new adoptive parents need to take time off to enable a child to settle in their new home. I absolutely agree. There are many complex needs that adoptive parents may face in settling their new child in, and balancing that with their employment needs, whether they are self-employed or in mainstream employment, poses many issues. I agree that improvements need to be made to the parental system. If she will bear with me, I will make a specific promise to her on how we can best move this forward.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) also highlighted his local government experience. It is important to draw that out because we have all been corporate parents. We understand the importance of the role played both by the care system and by foster carers, kinship carers, and especially adoptive parents making a decision to permanently offer a home, love and support to a young person. He set out some of the specific challenges faced in Northern Ireland, for which I am grateful. He is right to highlight the spiralling statistics for children in care. As I just mentioned, it is critical to anybody with local government experience that sustainability and feasibility of adoption for all is imperative. I am very much aware of the points coming out in this debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, asked a specific question on the adoption support fund. He is, as ever, entirely right to raise this very reasonable question because current funding is, I think, only set until April 2025. If I may, I will write to the Department for Education directly and share the response I receive. I do not want to speak on behalf of another Department today, in case the information I provide turns out to be inaccurate, but I will follow up with the hon. Gentleman directly on that.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly set out the challenge of addressing the stereotypical perception of adoption as receiving a babe in arms. More often than not, people could be opening up their home and family to older children, those with very complex needs, or those who have experienced significant trauma. That requires time off too. Time off is required not just for a newborn child who needs a parent with them for obvious reasons throughout the day, but potentially for an older child’s significant, complex needs. The hon. Gentleman’s point reflects the real-world circumstances that many adoptive parents face.
The shadow Minister set out many of the advances that have been made over the past 14 years in this space, and I fully acknowledge those; but that prompts the question how, despite those advances, we have ended up in this position. I accept that we moved forward by introducing, as he said, automatic pupil premium allocation, the adoption support fund, adoption leave and so on. The challenge we face is how we can collectively encourage people to come forward as adopters, kinship carers and foster carers. As a Government, we have a responsibility to make that process as easy as possible. When we look at the outcomes of children who grow up in what one might consider traditional care settings—that is, a children’s home—versus the outcomes of children who grow up in a more traditional family unit, whether adoptive or foster care, or with birth parents, the statistics are stark. If we look at the number of care leavers in the prison system, for instance, or the level of qualifications, some of the figures are incredibly concerning. The shadow Minister’s point was very well made.
Turning back to my substantive comments, we want to ensure that parental leave is supporting all working families as well as possible, so the Government have committed to a review of the parental leave system and work is already under way on planning for that review.
Enabling parents to take time off work not only allows for bonding time but ensures that they are able to give a child the care that they need. In the case of adoption, that ability to connect and care, as we have just discussed, is essential in terms of securing the permanence of any adoption placement. For all those reasons, employed adoptive parents have broadly the same rights and protections as birth parents, in that statutory adoption leave is a day one right, but of course there is the anomaly that we are speaking about today.
I therefore want to give the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a clear assurance that I will write in to that parental leave review and make sure that what we have discussed today is fed into that process, because whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of this, I think that we can all accept that there is a gap, and that we all want as many people as possible to be able to come forward as carers. The anomaly is potentially a barrier to that for some people, not least because we have that means-tested, not especially well advertised, not-brilliant-levels-of-uptake current system, which I think we would all want looked at.
In the meantime, where adopters do not qualify for that statutory payment they have the local authority option, but I would like to highlight some of the wider support, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, did in his contribution. There is not only advice, information and counselling, but means-tested support. Potentially, on top of that, there is support for new parents—any new parents—in terms of potential eligibility for universal credit, child benefit, and the Sure Start maternity grant, all of which can help all families with the cost of raising children, especially those in need of extra support.
I think I will leave it there, Ms Furness, with just a final thank you to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for calling this debate. We recognise the contributions of self-employed people, who are a key part of our economy, and we appreciate the valuable difference that adopters make. Therefore, it is only right that we have taken the time today —I am pleased to have had the chance—to consider how we support the remarkable people who take on both roles at the same time.
I reiterate that I will write to the Department for Business and Trade about the issues that have been raised in this debate, and about how the debate can feed into the review that I mentioned earlier, because it is crucial that we accept that there is an anomaly in the system. I will, obviously, send the hon. the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a copy of my correspondence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Jobcentres work with a range of external providers to offer a wealth of outreach support. In Berkshire, this includes work coach support for customers with complex needs delivered by Reading college, outreach delivered by the Slough homelessness team and at Windsor Homeless Project locations, and employment support delivered by the probation hub in Reading. Outreach work is something that we not only strongly support, but actively encourage.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has named a number of projects in Berkshire, none of which falls within my constituency of Newbury. Would he welcome community interest companies such as Lambourn Junction hosting jobcentres in their facilities to make sure that people in rural constituencies such as mine have access to a jobcentre, rather than having to travel into the main town centre for that support?
Andrew Western
I would very much welcome such an initiative being brought forward in the hon. Member’s constituency of Newbury. He may also be pleased to know that there is the potential for a youth hub to open in Newbury, similar to that in Oxford, which was grant funded and is already in operation.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Once people are granted refugee status, they have immediate access to DWP employment support and services. Work coaches work with refugee customers to understand their individual employment needs and provide tailored support, as appropriate, including with CV writing, interview preparedness and help securing work experience. Those who require more intensive support can be referred to DWP employment programmes or other contracted provision.
Tim Farron
The Government are seeking to clear the very unacceptable backlog—the huge backlog—of asylum applications they inherited from the previous Government. As a result, we are already beginning to see an increase in the number of newly recognised refugees, who rightly now have the right to work and to contribute here. Can the Minister say a bit more about the strategic planning and cross-departmental work that is happening on providing tailored support—he talked about tailored support, but the existing scheme of course comes to an end in June—so that refugees who have every right to be here have the ability to take a job, pay taxes and contribute here?
Andrew Western
The hon. Member is entirely correct to recognise the important role of refugees in contributing to our economy. There is a range of tailored support available with things such as language support and, as I mentioned earlier, with CV writing and interview preparedness, but there is also support with ensuring that their qualifications earned elsewhere are transferable to this country. I would of course be very happy to meet him to discuss further the support that could be put in place as we look, as he says, to clear the asylum backlogs. We are in constant communication with the Home Office and other Departments to ensure that there is a holistic approach in doing so.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government keep the rates of parental pay under review. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement in a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 30 October, and subject to parliamentary approval, parental pay will increase in line with the consumer prices index at the rate of 1.7% from April 2025.
Munira Wilson
At less than half the rate of a full-time national minimum wage, maternity and paternity pay is so low that most parents simply cannot live on it, and they are often forced into debt, or forced back to work sooner than they would like. A poll of fathers found that two-thirds of them would take more leave if paternity pay were higher. If we want to give families choice in how they care for their children in those precious early months, will the Minister discuss with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade how we can boost rates of maternity and paternity pay?
Andrew Western
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but requests for a significant uplifting of benefits come with a price tag and I heard no suggestions as to how that would be paid for. On support for parents, the Government committed in their manifesto to review parental leave to ensure that it best supports working families. Further details of that review will be announced in due course.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Recent damning statistics highlighted that just 2% of parents made use of shared parental leave in the past year, with uptake skewed towards the highest earners. Given the importance of breaking down barriers to equal parenting for employment, will the Minister ensure that he works with the Department for Business and Trade as part of the upcoming review to ensure that enhanced parental leave is considered, including strengthening paternity leave entitlements?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight not just the importance and benefits of shared parental leave, but the disparity between those who make use of it. I will, of course, maintain dialogue with the Department for Business and Trade as we go through that review, but I would also welcome a discussion with my hon. Friend about his ambitions and ideas for how we could take that forward.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
How does the Secretary of State envision the future of jobcentres in my constituency and across Scotland, and what role will technology play in that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that any reform to our jobcentres must come with digital transformation. We are currently exploring schemes such as a “Jobcentre in your pocket” app, as well as looking for ways in which jobseekers can self-serve in terms of meeting the conditions of their conditionality regime.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A recently published freedom of information request indicates that AI tools used to detect DWP fraud are biased and disproportionately discriminate against people by age, disability, marital status and nationality. Obviously, that has caused considerable concern. What assurances can the Minister give that the procurement and use of such tools will be covered by strict governance standards, including tests for fairness?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will know that we face a significant challenge, with fraud and error costing the Department almost £10 billion a year. It is right that we look to utilise all available tools to tackle it. However, I understand her concerns, although I would remind her that the final decision on whether someone receives a welfare payment is always made by a human. That is the most robust safeguard that we can have in place—although of course it sits alongside a broader suite.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My inspirational constituent, Bells Lewers, has terminal bowel cancer. When she was first undergoing treatment, she was initially turned down for personal independence payment, despite the significant impact on her ability to work and carry out basic daily activities. Has the Minister considered incorporating clinical diagnosis alongside function in eligibility assessments, and will he meet Bells to discuss the assessment process?
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
An astonishing £35 billion has been lost to benefit fraud and errors since the pandemic. Will the Minister outline the plans and the timeline for recouping that money?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the enormous cost to the Department—upwards of £35 billion—of fraud since the pandemic. She will be pleased to know that the fraud, error and debt Bill is due to come to the House early in the new year. This Government are serious about tackling fraud; it is just a shame that we inherited the mess we did.
Healthy Start: Uptake
Andrew Western Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Healthy Start is a passported scheme with eligibility being derived from certain qualifying benefits, such as universal credit. The uptake percentage for the Healthy Start scheme is calculated by comparing the number of potential eligible people with the number of beneficiaries—individuals who accessed the Healthy Start scheme. The NHS Business Services Authority publish the data on their website where it is publicly available.
Eligibility and take-up numbers have been used in numerous parliamentary questions and debates. A previous source data issue that affected eligibility statistics resulted in a written ministerial statement being laid in Parliament on 26 March 2024.
I regret to inform the House that a further issue has been identified with the statistics on the number of those potentially eligible. This dates back to January 2023. This means that uptake and eligibility data used in 15 parliamentary questions and eight debates under the former Government was inaccurate.
It is important to state that this issue has not impacted any Healthy Start applications, existing beneficiaries, or live claim processes. This issue has only affected reported uptake statistics.
Issue
Healthy Start uptake percentage statistics are calculated using information provided by Department for Work and Pensions. DWP generates potential eligibility figures using the universal credit assessed income period. Unfortunately, this period was calculated incorrectly meaning the monthly figures reported were based on a longer period.
This means that the potential eligibility figures provided by DWP from January 2023 to June 2024 were inaccurate.
Impact
The error means that the number of those potentially eligible has been overestimated. This in turn has led to an underestimated uptake percentage since January 2023.
It should be noted that while these statistics are a key element for reporting uptake of the Healthy Start scheme, this has not impacted any Healthy Start applications, existing beneficiaries, or live claim processes. The scheme continues to be promoted by the NHS Business Services Authority, which administer the scheme on behalf of Department of Health and Social Care, through a variety of publications, social media, exhibits, etc.
Corrective action
DWP has corrected the calculation of the assessed income period from July 2024. Cross-departmental testing is being conducted to provide assurance before any further data is shared with NHSBSA.
The incorrect statistical data has been removed from the NHS Healthy Start website.
Unfortunately, we are unable to publish corrected historical figures as the number of recipients of universal credit changes daily, meaning the data is only fully accurate at the time it is produced. We will seek to restore fully accurate uptake data as soon as we are able.
[HCWS242]
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
No specific assessment has been made of the impact of the household support fund on low-income households in 2025-26, although we hear routinely from local authorities across the country about the impact of the fund in supporting those who are struggling. An evaluation of the fourth iteration of the scheme, running from April 2023 to March 2024, will be published shortly, exploring the benefits of the more than 19 million awards made during this period.
Warinder Juss
I agree that the payment of winter fuel allowance should be means-tested, because many pensioners who receive the winter fuel allowance simply do not need it. However, there are pensioners who are not entitled to pension credit who will struggle to heat their homes. Can the Minister please confirm the extent to which the household support fund will assist those pensioners in my Wolverhampton West constituency?
Andrew Western
The household support fund is intended to support a wide range of households in need, including pensioner households. There has been no ringfencing of funding for specific groups since October 2022, meaning that local authorities have the flexibility to support pensioners who are just above the pension credit threshold. In the 2023-24 financial year, 26% of household support funding went towards meeting energy costs.
Alistair Strathern
I welcome the Government’s decision to provide more than £1 billion in new funding for the household support fund, extending it all the way through next year, and to give much more notice to the local authorities that deliver it. The funding is so important not just to countless vulnerable residents, but to great local organisations, such as the Need Project food banks in my constituency. How will the Department work with local authorities to make the most of the notice and to ensure the funding goes as far as possible?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a former local authority leader, I know that above all else, certainty will allow councils to design and deliver sustainable plans for local welfare assistance. The Government’s commitment to funding the HSF until March 2026 offers that certainty and time to plan with greater confidence. To that end, we will confirm individual allocations for the forthcoming one-year extension to the HSF as soon as possible, and ahead of the scheme beginning on 1 April.
Damien Egan
Because the household support fund is devolved to local councils, there are lots of different examples of how the funding is spent, so how will the Minister ensure that the money from councils goes to the people who really need it?
Andrew Western
Like me, my hon. Friend is a former local authority leader—albeit a directly elected mayor, and with a far greater mandate, therefore, than I ever enjoyed. Like me, he will appreciate the importance of empowering local areas to respond to local need. That said, all councils must develop delivery plans to show how they are targeting the funds to support the most vulnerable, to ensure that the spirit of the HSF is upheld in helping low-income households with the cost of essentials.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
How many current Department employees cannot receive further sponsorship due to the previous Government’s changes to the skilled worker visa salary threshold?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My hon. Friend asks an important question and I will be delighted to follow up with him in writing.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
According to the census, 72% of Somalis here live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. In answer to my written question, the Department says it is “exploring the feasibility” of publishing benefits claimed by nationality, which is important for a proper debate on benefits policy and immigration policy. Can the Minister confirm that that work is going ahead and tell us when the data will be published?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that nationality and country of origin are not factors in assessing benefit eligibility. We may look at that in future, but I would be delighted to follow up with him in writing about how we will take it forward.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
When I speak to my constituents, from Lofthouse to Farnley, they are extremely concerned about the amount of money being lost to fraud and error in benefits. Can the Minister confirm a timeline and a plan to get back the £35 billion that has been lost since the pandemic?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The spiralling nature of fraud in this country since the pandemic and on the last Government’s watch is totally unacceptable. We will bring forward a fraud, error and debt Bill in the coming months, which is part of a much broader package—the largest-ever package brought forward by any Government—to take out more than £7.6 billion of fraud over the forecast period.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Citizens Advice tells me that the DWP continues to start action on alleged overpayments more than six years after the event. That is longer than bank records are kept to prove otherwise. Does the Secretary of State think that that is fair and right?
Office for Nuclear Regulation Annual Report and Accounts
Andrew Western Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s annual report and accounts for 2023-24. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS162]
Work and Pensions
Andrew Western Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
On the wider points, I will begin with the question of the adequacy of carer’s allowance, set as it is at £151 per week. Carer’s allowance will be increased in April 2025 by the consumer prices index to help ensure that it maintains its value. As well as carer’s allowance, carers in low-income households can claim income-related benefits such as universal credit and pension credit.
[Official Report, 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 883.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):
Andrew Western
On the wider points, I will begin with the question of the adequacy of carer’s allowance, set as it is at £81.90 per week. Carer’s allowance will be increased in April 2025 by the consumer prices index to help ensure that it maintains its value. As well as carer’s allowance, carers in low-income households can claim income-related benefits such as universal credit and pension credit.