Pension Schemes Bill

Andrew Western Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

At the outset, I take the opportunity to declare my own interest. Unlike the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), I was elected prior to Lord Cameron ejecting councillors from the local government pension scheme. As a former member of Trafford metropolitan borough council, I also have savings in the local government pension scheme. I am therefore set to benefit from the improved governance of the LGPS initiated by the Bill.

These measures are testament to our dedication to building a resilient, efficient and fair pension system, galvanising and creating the potential to boost our economy at every opportunity. It is our aim to build a future in which every saver can look forward to a secure and prosperous retirement.

I welcome the broad, if not entirely universal, support for the Bill. The open discussion in which we have engaged today is important because, as a responsible Government, we want the House to be assured that the new powers in the Bill come with appropriate mitigations. We understand that Members will have questions, and I have listened carefully to those that have been raised. I remind everyone that the highly fragmented pensions framework has not served savers well, and there is a need for improvement as both the industry and savers demand a better service. The Bill goes to the core of what is needed, providing big solutions to the big problems that are undermining so much potential for savers and the economy.

Let me now turn to some of the comments and queries that have arisen throughout the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for speaking in favour of some elements in the Bill, and for their recognition of the investment and growth opportunities that it can unleash.

I am grateful for the constructive support and consensus that we heard from both the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who opened the debate for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for South West Devon, who closed it. They were right to mention the specular success of automatic enrolment, but that was half the job, as pointed out by the Pensions Minister, and I think the hon. Member for South West Devon acknowledged that we now need to move on to the pressing task of dealing with pension adequacy, which will be taken forward by the pensions review. They were also right to refer to the complexity and fragmentation of pension pots.

I welcomed the support from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for the long-awaited pensions dashboard, and was particularly pleased to hear of his support for changes in the local government pension scheme, although he expressed concern about certain parts of the Bill and the potential for propping up a failing scheme that arises from those changes. Let me reassure him that no cross-subsidising between administering authorities would be caused by any changes made by the Bill. As for the question of safeguards in respect of surplus release, we cannot stop share buy-backs and the like, but we have confidence in the ability of trustees to adhere to their fiduciary duties.

I understand that mandation has given rise to the fundamental objection of not just the hon. Gentleman but a number of other speakers, but I do not believe that it undermines fiduciary duties, and I do not agree with that analysis. The Bill contains clear safeguards that are consistent with those duties, not least in clause 38, which refers to an opt-out in the event of material detriment to members of a fund. The hon. Gentleman also raised questions relating to gilts; we believe that nothing in the Bill would undermine a well-functioning gilt market. However, as I have said, I welcome the broad support for the Bill, particularly with regard to value for money, small pots, guided retirement products and terminal illness changes.

[Kit Malthouse]

I want to be clear—so that the House is clear—about the opt-out to which both Ministers have referred. Is it a correct interpretation to say that it is not an opt-out at the discretion of the trustees of the fund, and that the Bill requires them to apply to the regulator with evidence for the regulator to make a decision to grant them the ability to opt out? The idea that trustees are somehow free to make a decision in the interests of the fund is not actually correct, is it?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation, although I do not entirely agree with his characterisation. It is, I think, perfectly reasonable that we would ask trustees to explain how they feel that what is proposed would be to the detriment of their scheme members.

I welcomed the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), for many of the general proposals in the Bill. I entirely agreed with his comments about the need to give savers the best possible advice and protections. I also agreed with what he said about the opportunities to deliver further investment in our economy. As for social housing, which others also raised, he will know that many pension schemes already make such investments, and I certainly support their continuing to do so.

We then heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. I particularly welcome her comments on the value-for-money changes, and she is absolutely correct to highlight the importance of looking at schemes in the round, not just on cost. On the pipeline of investments that she set out, I hope she is reassured by some of the steps that the Government are taking—for instance, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—to ensure that there are a range of exciting major projects, such a reservoirs and houses, that people will be able to invest in.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is certainly correct to say that he punctured the air of consensus in outlining his reservations. I know that my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has agreed to have a conversation with the right hon. Member next week, and I hope that he will find that incredibly helpful. Clearly, it is not for me to comment on whether this should be a hybrid Bill. On the question of megafunds, he is right that not all large schemes provide a better return, but the evidence shows that while that is not always the case, they do see better returns on average. That is an important point.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was correct to raise how long we have been waiting for the pensions dashboard, and I am similarly excited and anticipate its arrival. I promise that it will be worth the wait when it finally arrives. On her point about the scope of the Bill, the pensions review will take forward a number of the issues on which she and other Members said the Bill could have gone further. The pensions review is under way, and we will say more about that incredibly soon.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On the pensions review, there is a massive cross-party consensus that there is an issue with its adequacy, and we want to see it tackled. Will Ministers agree to take this forward in as cross-party a way as possible? We all care strongly about it.

[Andrew Western]

This matter is important to everybody in this House, because it is important to the constituents of everybody in this House. I would be very open to ensuring that Members of this House are able to feed as much as possible into the pensions review. It is an incredibly important piece of work.

I return to the question of my age. As a millennial, I am terrified of admitting that I have now reached an age when I should be thinking about my pension, having just turned 40. In any event, some of the work around the consolidation of small pots and so forth will help people.

A number of Members have asked about the balance of the distribution of any surplus release, and it is ultimately for trustees to decide on that balance. On the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about potential guidance coming forward—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) touched on this as well—that is something that I will discuss with the Minister for Pensions. It may well be teased out in Committee.

I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will be a member of the Bill Committee and continue the dialogue with the Minister for Pensions. I am always keen to find volunteers, and I hope that he will put himself forward. On the question of regulatory decision making, I hope that the Pensions Regulator has heard what he said about pace.

On the issue of divestment from funds that invest in fossil fuels and so forth, it is a matter for trustees. Individual flexibility on investments is a cornerstone of the system, but we are consulting on UK sustainability reporting standards and on transition plans.

Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—we always save the best for last. I am very grateful for his support for the Bill. If he was not 18 yesterday, I am sure it was the day before. None the less, I wish that everybody had a mum like his. We may not have had some of the challenges with the adequacy of people’s pensions had they all received such superb advice from their parents at the age of 18.

Today we embark on a transformative journey with this Pension Schemes Bill. This legislation underscores our readiness to deliver fundamental changes to the pensions landscape, an endeavour that is not only urgent, but essential for driving a future in which savers and, indeed, our economy can derive the benefits of a better organised, less fragmented and easier to navigate pension system, and I am pleased by the widespread support for the Bill across the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Pension Schemes Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 October 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Western.)

Question agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Western.)

Question agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting any increase in the expenditure of the Pensions Regulator attributable to the Act;

(b) the amendment of section 177(5) of the Pensions Act 2004 so as to increase the limit in that provision on the amount that may be raised by pension protection levies imposed by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.—(Andrew Western.)

Question agreed to.

Child Maintenance Payments

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State (Minister for Lords), Baroness Sherlock OBE, has made the following written statement:

I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, the Government published their response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation. Releasing the response shows the Government’s commitment to reducing the number of children growing up in poverty, which holds back too many children, limiting their future prospects and holding back this country’s potential. This consultation was launched by the previous Government and extended by this Government to give as many people as possible the chance to respond.

The Government are delivering on our plan for change, and are reforming the Child Maintenance Service to help ensure that more children get the money they deserve. This consultation contains proposals that are part of the action we are taking that will lift more children out of poverty and support the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.

The consultation received over 2,700 public responses, and engagement from 28 stakeholder organisations across the UK. Additionally, we commissioned research with current CMS customers who use the direct pay service to help us quantify the impacts of the reforms and provide in-depth insight.

There will be two clear options for parents following the planned reforms. One is to make a family-based arrangement. We will provide parents with enhanced support to make and maintain these, and we are working to improve our communications to support parents in understanding the options that are available to them. Our ambition is that anyone with a stable and compliant direct pay arrangement should find this option meets their needs.

Of course, family-based arrangements are not appropriate for all separated parents, and where that is the case, or where people prefer to be part of the statutory system, it will still be available. The CMS will operate a single service, based on the current collect-and-pay model, in which it will manage all payments, with an improved ability to identify and act on non-compliance.

As part of these reforms, we will halve the fees for those using the CMS, while maintaining a 20% fee for non-resident parents who refuse to pay up on time and in full. Parents currently in the direct pay system will have the choice of keeping their CMS case, which will be moved to the new, improved service, giving them the peace of mind that maintenance will be paid and any problems will be followed up, in return for a small fee—or have improved support to make and maintain a family-based arrangement.

We plan to progress with these proposals and believe that they will address the fundamental issues with direct pay. This change will prevent parents getting stuck in ineffective arrangements, in which no, reduced or erratic payments go to children. We know from research with direct pay customers that only six in 10 receiving parents in direct pay report getting all the child maintenance that they are owed, and only four in 10 say that they always receive it on time. Removing direct pay will mean we can tackle this hidden non-compliance and get money flowing to children in these cases.

To have the best impact on child poverty, we need to ensure that more children are in effective arrangements, which we envisage these changes helping with. We estimate that this change could result in around 20,000 fewer children in poverty, on the “relative low income after housing costs” measure. To further support children receiving maintenance payments, a commitment was made to position child maintenance deductions higher up the universal credit deductions priority order as part of the fair repayment rate. The repositioning gives greater protection, ensuring that child maintenance is paid in cases where the deductions cap is reached.

The removal of direct pay will also represent a significant improvement to victims and survivors of domestic abuse using the CMS, by reducing contact with the other parent, and reducing the paying parent’s ability to financially control the receiving parent by paying too little or too late, as they currently can under direct pay.

I am committed to ensuring that victims and survivors of domestic abuse get the help and support that they need to use the CMS safely, and have outlined in the consultation response the work that the Department is undertaking to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse to use the service safely.

The reforms announced yesterday are just the first step in our plan to reform the Child Maintenance Service. Alongside action to modernise the service, increase ease of access, streamline enforcement, and better support victims and survivors of domestic abuse, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the child maintenance calculation.

I believe that the changes outlined in the Government’s response will help us to achieve a CMS that is fair, trustworthy and more accessible to parents, particularly those who are vulnerable. It will be better able to tackle non-compliance head-on by quickly identifying and tackling missed payments and, most importantly, it will lift more children out of poverty.

The changes to remove direct pay and reform the collection fee structure will require changes to legislation, which will be dependent on parliamentary approval. Subject to securing parliamentary time to make the necessary changes in legislation, we aim to implement them in 2027-28.

[HCWS735]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle fraud in the welfare system by organised criminal groups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The Department works collaboratively across Government and law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare fraud perpetrated by organised criminal gangs. This type of criminality is complex and far-reaching, and a collaborative approach is therefore essential. I am pleased to confirm that new powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will help us better tackle organised crime by taking greater control of our investigations through new powers of entry, search and seizure.

[Mr Charters]

Having spent my career before entering this place tackling fraud, I recognise the scale of the challenge, so I commend the Secretary of State for her leadership, with the biggest ever crackdown on benefit fraud. Given the success of whistleblower reward schemes in tax and financial crime, does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is merit in exploring similar schemes to uncover organised fraud in the benefits system, so that more funds can be recovered to support those who genuinely need support: our constituents?

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We take all allegations of fraud seriously. People who suspect fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions can use existing channels to report it, including the national benefit fraud hotline. This Government are not complacent. As I mentioned in my substantive reply, we are taking action with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which will provide a range of new powers to address fraud and error in the social security system, after the Conservative party failed to substantively update our powers to tackle ever-more complex fraud during 14 long years in office. However, I will watch with interest whether there is learning from the schemes my hon. Friend mentioned that could be applied to cases of benefit fraud.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?

[Andrew Western]

I am very happy to raise with the Home Office the issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but I would say to him, and indeed to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that what genuinely undermines confidence in the welfare system is the record of the previous Government, who allowed welfare fraud to spiral towards £10 billion a year and failed to take the powers needed, as we are doing now, to get that number down.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of children in poverty in the Livingston constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to help prevent the use of the child maintenance system to facilitate economic abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The issue of economic abuse through the Child Maintenance Service is a serious one, which this Government are looking to address urgently. I am pleased to say that a response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation was published earlier today. We intend to reform the CMS into a single service type, where the CMS collects and transfers all payments. This reform will drastically reduce opportunities for economic abuse throughout the service and make sure that money gets to the children who need it. We estimate that this change alone could lift more than 20,000 children out of poverty.

[Sarah Green]

I have too many constituents whose financial abuse is effectively being perpetuated and facilitated by the Child Maintenance Service. I have secured a meeting with the relevant Minister in the other place, but it has been postponed. Could the Minister help me to secure a date for that meeting? I am sure that he would agree that if the system is at fault, it needs to change.

[Andrew Western]

I hope the hon. Member has heard me say that we concur with the need for change. We have announced changes in the right direction today, and I will of course pick up with my fellow Minister about securing that meeting for her. I know they have already been in protracted talks about arranging it, and I will make sure it happens.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My constituent, Deborah, should receive monthly child maintenance payments for her daughter, but her former partner withholds payments, despite my complaints and hers to the DWP Child Maintenance Service complaints team, advising them that he deliberately withholds payments for three months and then backdates them. That is a form of abuse and controlling behaviour, but the DWP complaints team have advised me today that there is nothing they can do to prevent it, despite a deduction-from-earnings order being in place. Does the Minister agree that that is a completely inadequate response that requires a ministerial review of the system?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted. He will have heard the reform that I announced earlier, but I absolutely understand why he wants to raise this issue for his constituent, and if he would like to meet me to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

8. Whether she is taking steps with Cabinet colleagues to help support climate and nature targets through her Department’s pensions policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Many new mothers in Plymouth are claiming maternity allowance, not because they are unemployed, but because they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay; they may be self-employed, have recently changed jobs or have had a pregnancy-related sickness. Many of them have contacted me with concerns that maternity allowance is treated as unearned income and is therefore subject to universal credit deductions, unlike statutory maternity pay. What steps is the Department taking to ensure financial security for women in Plymouth who are claiming maternity allowance?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The treatment of maternity allowance in universal credit was subject to a judicial review, which upheld the policy of treating it as unearned income when calculating universal credit and of treating SMP paid by employers as earnings, in common with other statutory payments made by employers. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—may be available to parents.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

My constituent Tirath is currently being pursued by the Child Maintenance Service for £20,000, despite having successfully appealed the claim in 2022. He is now at risk of losing his professional status as a pharmacist because of this process. Will the Minister encourage the CMS to investigate that case urgently or to meet with me to discuss it?

[Andrew Western]

I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine, and to do so in a debate on such an important and emotive subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing it. He has spoken passionately today, as have all Members who contributed, and has done so consistently in his fight to bring forward Philomena’s law. I want to say on the record what a champion he has been for that cause.

As we have heard, this was a painful, scandalous and shameful episode in Ireland’s history. It is impossible to imagine the trauma that the women and children who were sent to these institutions suffered; the heartbreaking accounts of their experiences are distressing in the extreme. What happened to them is truly appalling—all the more so because it was only in 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. It is absolutely right that the victims of the scandal are at last receiving some kind of redress through the mother and baby institutions payment scheme in Ireland.

The payments can never, ever put right the terrible suffering that those women were forced to endure. No amount of compensation can make up for what they lost, but compensation for them and their family members is an important acknowledgment of the wrong that was done. Norma Foley, the Irish Government’s Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, recently highlighted how disappointed she is that not all the religious bodies involved have offered meaningful compensation. It appears that only two religious orders have contributed to the scheme in Ireland, so there is still quite some way to go to ensure that there is proper accountability and responsibility for the impact that time in these institutions had on the lives of those women and their children.

What does this scandal mean for the United Kingdom and our social security system? Due to the close historic ties between Ireland and this country, there has always been movement of people from one to the other. My constituency of Stretford and Urmston, much like that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), has a long history of drawing in families from Ireland, which contributed to the economic and cultural growth of the area and helped to shape the communities of today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) continued the theme highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford of the north-west’s significant Irish population and the contributions made by those Irish people to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool in particular. Other Members referenced the same thing in their communities, and the point is not lost on me. The same is true for many of the constituencies that are not represented here today, particularly urban areas where there is a significant Irish diaspora.

It is therefore not surprising that some of the people affected by this scandal are now living in the United Kingdom. The Irish Government estimate the number of applicants to the compensation scheme will be in the region of 34,000. They estimate around 40%—13,600—are living outside Ireland, with the majority assumed to be in the UK, though some will be in other countries too, particularly the United States.

However, as queried by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is no way of knowing exactly how many of those affected and now living in this country are also in receipt of an income-related benefit. On the question of cost, it is simply not possible to give a firm figure or determine the implications of the change, were it to be adopted. It is even less possible to speculate on how many might, at some point in the future, claim an income-related benefit. That is an important factor.

Income-related benefits such as universal credit, housing benefit and pension credit provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for people in various circumstances and on low incomes. The nature of those benefits and the rules under which they operate are approved by Parliament. To ensure that money is directed to those most in need, rules have been developed over many years setting out not only conditions of entitlement, but how a person’s financial and personal circumstances affect the amount they receive. That means income, such as earnings or pensions as well as capital and any savings above a certain level are generally taken into account; that is the point of income-related benefits.

The more money a person already has, the less they can expect to receive from the taxpayer. However, the social security system recognises that, in certain cases, the money or capital someone has can be ignored—or, as the terminology has it, disregarded. In pension credit, for instance, there are 28 separate categories of capital that are disregarded. Examples relevant for today’s debate include various compensation payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge and others highlighted some examples. These disregards cover medical compensation, such as payments in respect of infected blood; payments in respect of an historic wrong, as was highlighted, including those concerning Windrush and child migrants; and payments resulting from specific events, including payments relating to Grenfell tower and the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.

The number of disregards has grown over time as Parliament has responded to tragic events and scandals, such as the recent Post Office scandal. We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, when deciding whether a new disregard is appropriate—unfortunately, we live in a world where tragic events and scandals happen—several factors are considered: where the event took place, who is responsible, how many people are affected, and whether it is proportionate to amend the law.

What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the UK Government have direct responsibility or liability. The events that are the subject of this debate were a truly horrendous episode in Ireland’s history. We heard multiple references to the film “Philomena,” which I saw a very long time ago—not knowing what it was about, but because Judi Dench was in it. I will watch anything she is in, as I think she is amazing. As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, the film hits particularly hard as one watches it and sees what people endured.

Philomena’s example, what we have heard from her and her family’s Member of Parliament, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and Christina’s story, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), show just how significant an impact these events had on so many lives. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the Irish Government have taken responsibility, apologised and set up a compensation scheme to address the wrongs that occurred.

Let me address the Opposition spokesperson’s intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about those from Northern Ireland who spent time in mother and baby institutions. My understanding is that Northern Ireland is setting up its own scheme, but of course social security matters are devolved to its institutions. Whether Northern Ireland and the Republic establish a reciprocal agreement is a matter for them—such is the nature of devolution. I assure the hon. Lady that a scheme is in development.

Before securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which shows how strongly and passionately he cares about this issue. I assure him that both the Minister for pensions and the Minister for Social Security and Disability—I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but I am neither—are already carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland’s mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

A decision on that has not yet been made, partly because, to answer the hon. Member for South West Devon, conversations are ongoing across the Government, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, as well as directly with the Irish Government, about whether it is possible and how it might work. It is raised at that level frequently, because of the historical relationship between the two nations. I realise that Members will be disappointed that I am unable to confirm today whether a scheme will be put in place.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is not unusual in this House for Ministers to say that things are actively under consideration. In a previous Parliament, I have been in this room when Ministers have said that repeatedly. If it is under active consideration, can the Minister please say when that might conclude? Is he in a position to give us a deadline today, or is he able instead to write to every Member that has contributed to this debate within the next 14 days with a deadline?

[Andrew Western]

I am going to disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, because I am unable to give her that assurance today. Conversations between the UK and Irish Governments, as well as conversations between Government Departments, are ongoing. I do not want to suggest that we are leaning one way or another, or that a decision is imminent.

The hon. Member for South West Devon set out how unprecedented a decision this would be. We regularly receive requests for scandals and issues that have happened in other countries to be considered for a disregard in this country. For instance, when the coalition Government were in power, the Magdalene Laundries was one such example where a disregard was not put in place. More recently, we saw this with the Australian child abuse scandal and with Gurkhas seeking a disregard to the 28-day rule around the allocation of pension credit.

This would be a significant change with broader ramifications, but that is not to say that we are not looking to take that change forward. Thought still needs to be given to this, and conversations need to continue. I am grateful to all Members for the opportunity to set out the current conversations, and to hear directly about people’s experiences.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Minister for his response in relation to Northern Ireland, but I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive is just the postman for social benefits. The UK Parliament is sovereign. For something of this nature, given the small number it would impact and the small cost, I would want Northern Ireland to be part of the conversation from a UK-wide perspective, so that we go hand in hand, because constituents in Northern Ireland are as deserving as those here in GB.

[Andrew Western]

I do not want to openly disagree with the hon. Lady, but I gently say that social security matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although of course it seeks alignment on issues wherever it is able to do so, and I welcome that. The fact that it is looking at its own scheme related to people from Northern Ireland who were in mother and baby institutions in Northern Ireland points to the flexibility within the devolved system. However, I accept the point that she makes about the importance of ensuring that, were the UK Government to apply a disregard, we would look to have conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly about that also being applicable in its jurisdiction.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not just to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony about Christina’s story and more information about Philomena’s story.

[Daisy Cooper]

I know that the Minister is just about to respond to the fact that we have heard powerful testimony. I understand that he is not in a position to set out any deadlines today, so I implore him to make a different commitment. Will he please commit today, in front of the many people who have joined us, to use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between our constituents who are affected by this issue and the relevant Minister, so that they can speak directly to those in power who may be in a position to make decisions in due course? Will he please commit to doing everything he can to ensure that our constituents have their voices heard by those at the top?

[Andrew Western]

I will happily take that request back to the Department; clearly, it is a matter for the relevant Minister. However, I can perhaps liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who has led this campaign, to see whether such a meeting is possible, and I will happily update all Members on whether or not we are able to convene that meeting.

As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony. I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, everyone who has come along to listen and everyone who agreed to have their story told. As I have said, no decision has been made yet. We are very much listening to those who have been impacted by this issue. It would be a significant change—setting a precedent—but none the less we are keen, as I have said, to continue talks with the Irish Government and across Government before coming to a decision on this matter.

Office for Nuclear Regulation Corporate Plan 2025-26

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Written Statements

[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 corporate plan 2025-26. 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 documents on the grounds of national security.

[HCWS648]

Benefit System: Fraud and Error

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The annual statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2025, were published on Thursday 15 May 2024, at 9.30am.

Today's figures confirm the overall rate of overpayments is now 3.3% (£9.5 billion) for 2024-25, compared to 3.6% (£9.7 billion) in 2023-24. Overpayments due to fraud account for 2.2% compared to 2.7% last year while claimant error and official error are now at 0.7% and 0.4% respectively, compared to 0.6% and 0.3% last year.

This Government made a manifesto commitment that they will safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services. With welfare benefits paid to around 24 million people, the welfare system is a deliberate target for both organised crime groups and opportunistic individuals and it is vital that the Government continue to robustly tackle fraud to ensure support goes to those who need it most. We are taking further steps to minimise error, ensuring the right people are paid the right amount at the right time. The total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid in FYE 2025 was 0.4% (£1.2 billion), compared with 0.4% (£1.1 billion) in FYE 2024.

Through autumn Budget 2024 and spring statement 2025, the Department has committed to deliver £9.6 billion in scored savings out to 2029-30. This will be delivered through a suite of measures, including additional resourcing for the Verify Earnings and Pension Service which uses HMRC data to identify changes in claimants’ earnings and private pensions that may impact entitlement to carer’s allowance and pension credit, and new verification measures for capital and self-employed income and expenses across universal credit claims.

As part of this, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill), which moves to Second Reading in the House of Lords today, is estimated to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion over the next five years. It will safeguard public money by reducing public sector fraud and error and allowing the more effective recovery of moneys owed to the Government. The Bill will also help spot and stop errors earlier to avoid claimants’ getting into debt. The latest fraud and error in the benefit system statistics show overpayments at a staggering £9.5 billion in the last year, with capital remaining one of the top reasons for overpayments in UC and PC. This demonstrates the continued importance of the eligibility verification measure, which is a core part of the Bill.

Today we have also published our unfulfilled eligibility statistics, following last year’s reclassification from customer error underpayments. Unfulfilled eligibility measures how much a customer could have been eligible for had they told us their correct circumstances. The total unfulfilled eligibility rate in FYE 2025 was 1.3% (£3.7 billion) compared with 1.2% (£3.1 billion) in FYE 2024. The Department will report more on both overpayments and underpayments by way of its annual report and accounts, which are due to be published in July 2025.

[HCWS637]

Contingencies Fund Advance

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I would like to notify the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £4,500,000. This will enable the Department to start building an IT solution, for the delivery of the eligibility verification measure, from May 2025 onwards, before the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which includes this measure, receives Royal Assent.

Funding for this measure was included in the 2024 spending review. It is expected to generate £940 million in savings over five years to 2029-30. Expenditure before Royal Assent will help to ensure the timely delivery of these savings.

Parliamentary approval for capital of £4,500,000 for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £ 4,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

[HCWS631]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to help increase the accuracy of personal independence payment assessments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The Department is committed to ensuring that individuals receive high-quality and accurate assessments. Assessment suppliers are closely monitored using a range of performance measures designed to improve the accuracy of their advice. Independent audits are conducted to maintain high standards, and as part of our pathways to work proposals we are considering recording assessments as standard to increase transparency and build trust in the system.

[Robin Swann]

Data shared with me by Dermot Devlin from Disabled People Against Cuts shows that £50 million has been spent on PIP appeals in the past year alone, and also that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has reported that over 70% of those PIP appeals have been successful. When people are put through the harrowing process of being told that their PIP appeal is not appropriate and having to go through the entire appeal system, what are Ministers doing to ensure that any changes make that system friendly to those using it?

[Andrew Western]

I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the assessment process and the mandatory reconsideration process, but I would also say to him that I do not recognise those statistics. Indeed, under the current statistics, appeals are down by 16% on the previous year to January 2025. The other point that I would make to him is that while around 20% of applications are subject to a mandatory reconsideration, only around 5% of those are successful.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

The Centre for Inclusive Living in Dudley, which supports those with disabilities, and many residents have written to me to raise concerns about the PIP entitlement criteria and assessment. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that this Government will protect those most vulnerable in society and that those with disabilities will be enabled, not disabled?

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituents’ concerns and say to them that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of this session, we have this week announced a broader review of the PIP assessment process that I hope in due course, and by working with stakeholders, will be able to give my hon. Friend’s constituents and stakeholder organisations considerable reassurance.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why it appears that telephone assessments for PIP have a significantly higher success rate in applications than face-to-face applications?

[Andrew Western]

I am not able to explain the reason for that difference, but I am able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to move away from telephone appointments and return as quickly as possible to assessments made face to face wherever we are able to do so.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give us more information on what the PIP assessment review will look like?

[Andrew Western]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the review has only been announced today. There are a considerable number of strands to it that will be led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that work is beginning this week by reaching out, as is entirely appropriate, to those stakeholder organisations, who will feed in to the purpose and scope of that work moving forward.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

6. What progress her Department has made on its review of the personal independence payment assessment system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

This Government are committed to tackling poverty right across the UK. We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it is doing the job we want it to do: making work pay and tackling poverty. We have already announced that we will improve the adequacy of the standard allowance in universal credit, and we have introduced the fair repayment rate. Alongside that, the child poverty taskforce is exploring all available levers to reduce child poverty in all four nations, including considering social security reforms.

[Ann Davies]

Just a day before the new figures revealed yet another rise in child poverty in Wales, the UK Labour Government confirmed plans for billions of pounds-worth of welfare cuts, pushing tens of thousands more children into hardship. The Government tell me that the data is not robust enough to know the poverty impact on Wales, which is really not good enough. The Labour First Minister—of the Senedd, not the “Assembly”, if I may correct the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan)—has also criticised this Government’s approach. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the First Minister of Wales, conduct a Wales-specific impact assessment and scrap these cruel measures?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I am sure she would not want us to produce a potentially inaccurate assessment of the impact on Wales. What I would say—and I am sure that she agrees with this—is that the levels of poverty in Wales are unacceptable, which is a result of 14 years of the Conservative party failing to address the long-term industrial decline of many communities across Wales. I would also say to her that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work, so I am sure she will welcome the recent launch of the inactivity trailblazer in Wales.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me that the new fair repayment rate, which caps universal credit deductions at 15%, along with the actions of the Welsh Government to help more than 48,000 young people gain skills and find jobs through the young person’s guarantee scheme will help alleviate poverty in Wales, and therefore should be welcomed?

[Andrew Western]

I of course agree with my hon. Friend, about both the benefits of the youth guarantee and the specific impact of the fair repayment rate, which across the country will support 1.2 million of the poorest families, including 700,000 families with children.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Andrew Western Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.

Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.

New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—

“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—

(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;

(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and

(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”

This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—

“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.

(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—

(a) prepare a report on the review, and

(b) submit the report to the Minister.

(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—

(a) publish it, and

(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”

This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.

New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—

“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.

(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—

(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or

(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.

(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and

(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.

(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—

(a) published;

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and

(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.

(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”

This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—

“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—

(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and

(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;

provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—

(a) commenced;

(b) amended; or

(c) discontinued;

the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”

This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.

New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—

“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—

(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or

(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.

(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—

“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.

(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;

(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and

(c) recommendations for change.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—

(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and

(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”

New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—

“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””

This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—

“(1) A person who-

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of,

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”

New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.

(2) The powers to be applied must include–

(a) the power of arrest;

(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”

New clause 10—Liability orders—

“(1) Where a person–

(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,

(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and

(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,

the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.

(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;

(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and

(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—

“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”

New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”

New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.

(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”

New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”

New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.

(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–

(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and

(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);

(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;

(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.

(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,

(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and

(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—

(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and

(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”

New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”

(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””

New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—

“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”

This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.

New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—

“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,

(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—

(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and

(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,

may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,

(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.

(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—

(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or

(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,

the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert

“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.

Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert

“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”

Government amendments 25 to 29.

Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.

Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.

This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 34 to 43.

Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—

“(a) the liable person agrees, or

(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.

Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.

Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—

“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.

(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.

(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”

This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.

(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”

Government amendments 72 and 45.

Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.

This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—

“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”

This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.

Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”

Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12

This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—

“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.

This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.

Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.

This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.

Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert

“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”

Government amendments 46 to 67.

Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.

This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.

Government amendment 70.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.

This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill is that it will recover a tiny 1.8% of losses?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector; the Bill will recover £1.5 billion. However, it is part of broader measures—certainly on the Department for Work and Pensions side of the Bill —to save £9.6 billion across the forecast period. By the very nature of the changes that we are making with the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are designing them to be scalable. As the PSFA becomes more familiar with the work it is undertaking, we think that it will be able to save a significant amount more.

As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, with benefit fraud alone costing £7.4 billion in 2023-24, this is a major problem that is getting worse, not better. We cannot afford to ignore it, and we certainly do not accept it. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. Our public services, everyone who depends on them, and the taxpayers who fund them, all suffer. And they are increasingly suffering at the hands of fraudsters who use ever more sophisticated techniques to steal money meant for the public good.

The private sector has evolved and adapted its tools and tactics to respond, but, as the scale of the losses that I have just outlined make clear, the same cannot yet be said for the public sector. With this Bill, we will put that right. There will be new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside the tax and social security systems, and new powers for the DWP to modernise its response to fraud and error in the benefit system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, this Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the dodgy business people who try to defraud our public services and it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system. It is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. And it is fair to taxpayers, who deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The Human Rights Act 1998 was one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a Labour Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this Bill in no way contravenes the secrecy part of the 1998 Act?

[Andrew Western]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jenny the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament.

[Andrew Western]

I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jenny would always be most welcome on this side of the House.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister said that powers exist, but, plainly, they are not working, because we know that “sickfluencers” are doing their deeds and people are responding to them, particularly in the mental health sphere, where many of the claims are made. Indeed, we know that officials, or those acting on behalf of officials, are looking out for buzzwords, because, if there is a buzzword in there somewhere, they can bank the case and move on to the next one. Therefore, something plainly needs to be done to stop this. Will he look again at the Opposition’s new clauses 8 and 21, which would ensure that “sickfluencers” are targeted specifically, and say what, in the Government’s amended terms, they would do to deal with this particular group that are contributing significantly to the failure identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) in relation to the amount of money that we are able to claim back from the huge sum that is lost to fraud every year?

[Andrew Western]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done; what we differ on is the need for specific legislation in that regard. Where we are falling down at present is in the scale of the activity we are undertaking. We could be doing significantly more at the moment, but as I said in response to the previous intervention, I have commissioned work to ensure that that happens. We already routinely contact social media companies to ask them to take down specific posts that could help people to commit fraud against the welfare system. I am very happy to consider practical points, but I am convinced that we have the legislative weaponry required to take the necessary action to deal with people who are encouraging others to commit fraud, both online and elsewhere.

Government amendments 23, 24, 39 and 40 bring into scope the kind of information necessary for fraud investigations and enable the PSFA and DWP to compel certain types of special procedure material, including banking records or records of employment, in line with the policy intent. Requesting this type of information is not new for DWP and occurs under its existing powers. The amendments ensure that the PSFA and DWP can compel this information to support fraud investigations, while also ensuring that important exemptions are in place, such as those for excluded material and journalistic material.

Government amendments 30 and 31 seek to address two separate issues in respect of clause 67. Government amendment 30 includes a provision in the Bill so that the powers granted to the PSFA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE—by clause 7 of the Bill are exempt from the application of clause 67(5). This will ensure that the clause does not interfere with existing PACE provisions in relation to legal professional privilege, enabling the Bill’s PACE measures to function as intended.

Government amendment 31 removes subsection (6) in clause 67, which currently overrides existing self-incrimination protections on the PSFA’s information-gathering powers and PACE powers. This allows the common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply in the usual way—under the information-gathering powers—and ensures that the proposed PACE powers align with established PACE practices. The amendments ensure that clause 67 provides essential safeguards for the PSFA powers in the Bill related to the processing of information.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will accept that there is growing concern about issues of automated decision making, artificial intelligence and algorithms. While wanting to ensure that we get the best results, is the Minister able to commit to the transparency we need when it comes to AI and algorithms in relation to the Bill to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not unfairly hit?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I can give him that assurance and that we comply with all the Government’s required standards around the publication of such information.

Government amendments 25 and 26 relate to clause 9, which amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the Independent Office for Police Conduct director general’s functions to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators, enabling them to consider PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. Clause 9 also enables the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. Section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out requirements for such regulations made under that Act.

However, section 105 only applies to regulations made by a Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Office has no Secretary of State, this section would not include the regulations that the Minister for the Cabinet Office can make under clause 9. Government amendment 26 corrects that technicality so that section 105 also applies to that Minister. In addition, Government amendment 25 simply removes reference to part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 within clause 9(1), as the Bill will refer to the Act more widely, rather than just part 2.

Government amendments 48 and 72 provide a clear legislative framework for how the DWP and the PSFA will handle and transfer seized evidence to the most appropriate law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. The amendments will ensure that evidence is handled by the organisation best equipped to deal with the specific nature of the alleged crime, fostering inter-agency collaboration and reducing delays to investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is presumably keen to determine how much money is lost to fraud in Scotland, and I imagine he will require the Scottish Government to report back to the UK Government on their progress in clamping down on benefit fraud, but the same should apply in the rest of the country. That, of course, is the purpose of new clause 13, which would require an annual report on the amount of money recovered through the processes that he has outlined. Will he accept new clause 13? Will he also assure me on the point about the Scottish Government’s reporting of fraud?

[Andrew Western]

I assure the right hon. Member on his point with regard to the Scottish Government. However, I will resist new clause 13 because the publication of the DWP’s annual accounts will provide sufficient information about our performance on fraud and error.

Government amendment 42 specifies that the functions of the independent person who can be appointed by the Secretary of State in clause 87 do not apply to devolved benefits unless those are delivered by the Secretary of State under agency agreement. Government amendments 60 and 67 will amend the time required for compliance with a production order served in Scotland. That is to match normal conventions in Scotland. Government amendment 43 ensures that the new debt recovery powers taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill apply only to devolved benefits, while the Secretary of State recovers devolved debts under agency agreements.

Government new clause 18 and Government amendment 33 are consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers under the 2001 Act are unchanged by the Bill. Government amendments 36, 37 and 38 seek to clarify exemptions in the DWP’s information-gathering powers to deliver the intended policy outcome.

A key safeguard in the new DWP information-gathering powers is the exclusion of personal information about users of particular types of free services, such as advocacy and advice services that offer crisis support, for example when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. The intent of the safeguard is to ensure that nobody is deterred from seeking the support they need when they need it. However, the current drafting of that exemption in the Bill as “not for profit” is too broad. That excludes certain information that is very likely to be relevant to a DWP fraud investigation. For example, it prevents the Department from compelling information from housing associations, such as an individual’s address or tenancy, which can be instrumental in proving or disproving a suspicion of fraud.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion?

[David Davis]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will forgive me for waiting till what appears to be the end of his list. When the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asked him about the application of the Human Rights Act in this context, he said that the Bill did not breach it, in effect. My advice is a little different, and I waited to hear about his amendments to see whether anything in them changed that. My advice is that suspicionless financial surveillance could breach article 8, which covers the right to privacy, and article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination. Will the Minister make his legal advice on this available to the House? This is incredibly important and it is central to the major criticism of this Bill.

[Andrew Western]

I have already made clear that I am satisfied with the advice I have received. We will make available all the information we are required to make available, but the right hon. Member will appreciate that I am not able to give an undertaking to release all legal advice at this stage. What I can say to him is that I am very confident that there is no breach of article 8 in particular. That has been explored at length as we have gone through the process.

I welcome the ongoing engagement with industry and key stakeholders. We have made a significant effort to engage all interested parties and listen to their views. That feedback has been important in shaping our approach to the Bill to date and will continue to be so as it moves to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.

The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.

Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful.

[Andrew Western]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. In the time I have, I will try to respond to some of the points raised. I have listened closely to the concerns set out by Members from across the House, and I will of course ensure that they are taken forward as the Bill progresses to the other place, but today I will resist all non-Government amendments. I will make initial comments in response to several Members, before turning specifically to the nature of the amendments and new clauses.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), said that the Bill builds on the previous Administration’s work to tackle fraud and error. I have to say, I think that is a fairly generous interpretation of that work, not least because, as far as I can see, the previous Government introduced absolutely no powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to tackle fraud across the public sector, and, moreover, nothing on debt recovery. The only evidence we can find of any new powers the previous Government sought to introduce is in the eligibility verification space. I accept that they sought to do that, but they did so in a rather botched fashion, which was subject to significant criticism, and with none of the safeguards and oversight in place. We have now built those into the Bill. I absolutely agree with the Opposition spokesperson that the Government cannot be complacent in tackling fraud—and we will not be—but I say gently that, having allowed fraud and error in the welfare system to spiral to £9.7 billion at the time of the last election, the same cannot be said of the previous Government.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spoke of a broken welfare system. I do not want to be drawn into a debate on that, but a broken approach to tackling benefit fraud and error is certainly part of any problem that the Department faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Can the Minister reassure us that no action will be taken to stop social security payments until the human investigation has happened?

[Andrew Western]

I am happy to provide that assurance; the hon. Member has stolen my next line. I can say categorically that this is a data push only. No decisions will be taken as a direct result, other than a decision to look further into an account, and potentially initiate a human investigation, if needed.

I want to say a little more about amendments 10 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, which relate to driving licences. He rightly said that welfare recipients may not be able to engage with the Department. For the record, nobody in receipt of benefits or paid through pay-as-you-earn employment will be in scope of the debt recovery powers and therefore of the power to suspend driving licences. Where we do seek to suspend someone’s driving licence, it is worth remembering that this is after we have made at least four attempts to contact them through our debt management team, and at least four further attempts through our debt enforcement team, and we have established their ability to repay by looking at three months’ bank statements. If, when we seek to deduct from that bank account, an individual has removed the funds that we know they have, it is only then that we would look into the possibility of suspending their driving licence. Even then, because this is very much a last resort power, we would seek to agree a repayment plan with them right up until the end. The court would set repayment terms if a driving licence was suspended. It is also worth saying that it is always a suspended decision, subject to compliance with an affordable repayment plan set by the court. As I say, this is a power of last resort. I hope colleagues are reassured to hear of the many steps before we reach that point and, most importantly of all, to hear that the power does not apply to current benefit recipients or anybody paid through PAYE employment.

The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned new clause 11 and the publication of pilot scheme results. I would like to clarify for the House that we are not proposing any further pilot schemes as a result of introducing this legislation. Two pilot schemes have already taken place, so we know that our proposals work. We will be adopting a test-and-learn approach so that we can scale things up. The question of whether this mechanism will yield information that is helpful to us in our inquiries was settled by the previous Government.

[Esther McVey]

Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety?

[Andrew Western]

Information of that nature was published prior to Second Reading and is available to Members.

I turn to the amendments and new clauses that attracted the most attention in today’s debate. New clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, pertains to the carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. This Government value carers highly, and recognise the vital and valuable contribution they make every day. Like others, I see that in my constituency work, week after week, and I am in awe of all that carers do.

This Government inherited a system in which busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility, have been left to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We need to understand exactly what went wrong, so that we can set out our plan to put this right. That is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayments, and we were delighted that Liz Sayce agreed to lead that review, which will investigate how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future. The independent review is under way and is anticipated to conclude this summer.

But we are not sitting back; we are taking action now. We continue to review and improve our communication with carers to make it as easy as possible for them to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance entitlement. Moreover, this Government introduced the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced; the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit increased to £196 from 7 April this year. It is now pegged permanently to 16 hours.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Clearly, many carers have been affected by overpayments. Overpayment comes as a shock to many who are trying to work in order to bridge the gap between carer’s allowance and their family’s costs, and it has a significant impact on their mental health. Does the Minister share my gratitude to Liz Sayce for the work that she is doing to hopefully provide clarity for the many carers who are trying to juggle unpaid family care and work?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.

Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.

I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.

The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of

“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,

with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.

[Dr Luke Evans]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.

In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry, but I will not.

Turning to new clause 10, we want to ensure that the Government have access to a wide, appropriate and proportionate range of debt recovery powers, so that we have multiple methods of recovering money from those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so. However, new clause 10 is not required, as equivalent action is already provided for through existing legislation for the DWP, and by clause 16 of this Bill for the PSFA. Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts. In addition, there are direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill, which could include liability orders.

I have largely covered amendment 11. In closing, I want to make a few observations about amendments 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), but spoken to by other Members. In my view, those amendments would reduce the effectiveness of our debt recovery powers as proposed in the Bill, so I cannot agree to them. I recognise the importance of dialogue with customers all the way through the journey of debt recovery. As I set out in response to the concerns about the revocation of driving licences raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we will seek to engage with people at all stages of the journey. If we identified any vulnerabilities, we would cease recovery, and at all stages we would look to agree an affordable repayment plan.

I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and I thank them again for their contributions. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, and those who provided written evidence. Finally, I extend my thanks to the Clerks, the House staff and civil servants who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.

For too long, too little effort has been made to get a grip on public sector fraud, resulting in the totally unacceptable levels that we see today. With this Bill, we are taking the powers needed to act and to finally take the fight to the crooks and the con artists, from criminal gangs attacking our welfare system to covid fraudsters who stole from hard-working people in a time of national emergency.

This Bill is critical. It will save us billions of pounds, and it is part of a broader package in the Department to save £9.6 billion for the DWP by 2030. I hope that all Members feel able to support it today.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Winter Fuel Payment

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I am pleased to respond to this important debate. This topic affects millions of pensioners up and down our country. It is one we have debated many times in recent months, and it is right that we do so. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made important contributions that I want to acknowledge.

My hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), among others, talked about the inheritance that we as a Government faced when we came into office and the difficult decisions that have arisen as a result, and they were right to do so. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who talked about the work he is doing in his community to drive pension credit take-up. I know that Members across the House are doing the same, and I thank them for doing so.

As my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister set out earlier, the decisions we have made have not been easy, but we have made sure that we have protected those pensioners who need support the most. Winter fuel payments will continue to be paid to pensioner households in England and Wales with someone receiving pension credit or certain other income-related benefits. They will continue to be worth £200 for eligible households or £300 for eligible households with someone aged 80 or over. The majority of those payments—over £1 million—were paid before Christmas.

Means-testing the winter fuel payment was a choice we had to make to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, while doing what is necessary to repair the public finances after 14 years of the wrecking ball that is the Conservative party. It is the difficult decisions we have taken that mean this Government are able to provide much-needed additional investment in the NHS, which benefits us all, including pensioners who rely on these services. The Government are working hard to reform the NHS in England through the 10-year health plan to build a health service that is fit for the future.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while he may well be putting money into the NHS, which is great, his policy towards pensioners, based on the statistics we have seen, means that more pensioners are going into the NHS and putting more pressure on the service? It just does not make sense.

[Andrew Western]

I dispute the right hon. Lady’s statistics. She is right to highlight that there has been an increase in hospital admissions among over-65s, but that is entirely in line with the statistics for people entering hospital in other age cohorts. That is actually a result of the collapse of the NHS on the Conservatives’ watch, which means that A&E is the only option for so many people.

As I was saying, as a first step at the autumn Budget, the Government announced a £22.6 billion increase in day-to-day health spending in England and a £3.1 billion increase in the capital budget over this year and the next. But we know that even with our long-term efforts to rebuild critical public services, pensioner poverty is a very real concern.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will make some progress first.

There will always be those who, for whatever reason, have been unable to make sufficient provision for their retirement. The benefit system provides a vital safety net for those on low incomes who need support the most. This, of course, includes help through pension credit, worth on average £4,300 a year and which tops up income, as well as unlocking access to additional support and benefits. We know there are still low-income pensioners who are not claiming pension credit but are eligible to do so and we want everyone to get the support to which they are entitled. That is why, since September, we have been running the biggest ever pension take-up campaign. Around 1.4 million pensioner households receive pension credit, but too many have been missing out. Thanks to our campaign, we have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since the end of July last year, an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2023-24. That has led to almost 50,000 extra awards over the same period.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I wonder if the Minister can ask his friend, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), to get in touch with me about how he managed to find out where the 5,000 pensioners are that he was able to write to. I have tried to get that information so I can write to pensioners and tell them about pension credit, but it has not been available anywhere. If he could ask his friend to write to me, I would really appreciate it.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure she is capable of contacting my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield herself, but I recall that he did mention that he was working closely with his local authority. I am sure it has been able to assist in that campaign, which he described as a partnership rather than his own work, to drive take-up in his area.

As detailed earlier by the Pensions Minister, we are directly targeting all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit, bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, and we are introducing new research on the triggers and motivations that encourage people to apply for pension credit, to guide future policymaking.

I echo the Pensions Minister’s remarks on the triple lock. It is worth repeating that over 12 million pensioners will benefit from our commitment here. Over this Parliament, up to and including 2029-30, the OBR forecasts that Government spending on the state pension will rise by over £31 billion. And there is lots of other support too, including the warm home discount and the household support fund, available to pensioners.

I will turn now to some of the other specific points raised during today’s debate. Several Members raised the delays in pension credit processing. It is important for me to recognise here the sheer volume of applications the Department received during this period. We understand that pensioners expect their applications to be processed quickly and accurately, which is why we deployed over 500 extra staff to process the huge increase. The latest statistics also show a positive picture: outstanding claims have reduced from 85,500 in mid-December to just 33,700 by 23 February, which is in line with the Department’s usual number of claims awaiting processing.

Some hon. Members raised the issue of an impact assessment at the time of the policy decision. In line with the requirements of the public sector equality duty, an equality analysis was produced as part of the ministerial decision-making process. That was published on 13 September and placed in the House of Commons Library. It assessed the effects on individuals and households according to protected characteristics set out under the Equality Act 2010. They do not include impacts on the NHS.

Other hon. Members have quoted figures on the poverty impact of the changes to winter fuel payments. I simply note that yes, internal Government modelling was produced as part of routine policy advice. Given the interest from the Work and Pensions Committee and the public interest, the Department published this modelling for transparency in a letter to the Select Committee in November. However, it is essential to note that this modelling is subject to a range of uncertainties, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results, and that it does not take into account any impact of the measures we are taking to increase pension credit take-up and ensure pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Harriet Cross]

My understanding is that the impact assessment showed that about 100,000 pensioners would be put into poverty. I was just wondering what range either side of that figure would be acceptable to the Minister.

[Andrew Western]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I would never want to see those numbers increase, but that number is significantly better than the 300,000 pensioners who went into relative poverty under her Government.

To those asking about Government action with respect to energy costs, I say that the Government recognise that affording energy bills is a struggle for many and that energy debt is rising. The Government have continuous engagement with energy suppliers and have discussed the support they have in place to support vulnerable consumers, including pensioner households. We are continuing to deliver the warm home discount for eligible low-income households and have recently published a consultation on its expansion, which would bring around 2.7 million more households into the scheme, pushing the total number of households receiving the discount next winter up to around 6 million.

I will turn briefly to some of the contributions from Members on the Conservative Benches, and in particular from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who, interestingly—given the description used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) of this side of the House—I felt expressed faux outrage at this decision. It is rich from a party that, as I said, pushed 300,000 pensioners into relative poverty, made pitiful efforts to address pension credit take-up, made a 2017 manifesto commitment to means-test the winter fuel payment and let the value of the winter fuel payment fall by around 50% during its time in government.

The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went on to make repeated reference to Labour Members’ consciences, which was relatively offensive, but nothing compared with being called the “nasty party” by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. I will not accept those sorts of attacks from the Conservatives—the party of Downing Street parties, the party of the inhumane Rwanda scheme, and the party that drove so many to food banks. My conscience is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is appalling to imagine that theirs is the same after what they did to this country over 14 years.

I listened very carefully to—[Interruption.] I am being chuntered at from a sedentary position about the household support fund. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that it was not fully funded by the Conservatives on a multi-year basis, and it is this Government who have provided that certainty to local authorities.

I listened very carefully to the speech from the shadow Health Secretary and, indeed, the more than dozen speeches from Opposition Members, and I am still no clearer on what their policy actually is. We had one Member standing up and saying means-test, another standing up and saying tax the winter fuel payment, but neither shadow Secretary of State present bothered to stand up and tell us what the Conservatives’ policy is. If they want to stand up now and say that they would reverse this policy decision, I would be happy to give way to either of them. Feel free. Their silence says it all, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have made the hard choices necessary to bring the public finances back under control after 14 years of Tory misrule.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

At what point would the uptake of pension credit eliminate the savings from cancelling the winter fuel payment? At what number would the uptake overtake that payment?

[Andrew Western]

We have never suggested that they would, and the Minister for Pensions addressed that in his opening statement. The savings put forward do take account of that. I have to say that, in accepting that intervention, I was hopeful that, finally, one Tory would come forward with an actual policy in this area—I would say that I am disappointed, but it is only to be expected. Pensioner households who need support the most will continue to get winter fuel payments. We are getting more and more people on to pension credit, so that they can get winter fuel payments and increase their weekly income.

This motion calls for an apology. The only people who should be giving an apology to pensioners and to this country are those in the Conservative party, for the mess that they left behind.

Question put.