Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments and questions. I will speak first to Amendment 92. The amendment would undermine the policy intent of this part of the Bill, so we cannot accept it. The DWP leads investigations into social security matters and, as a result, our staff are better positioned to search for items relevant to these investigations—the things that they deal with, such as benefit claim packs or documents related to fraudulent identities. Requiring the police to be present for all DWP search and seizure activity, including investigative tasks related to securing criminal evidence, would erode the anticipated obvious benefits of the measure to both the DWP and the police. Crucially, it would divert the police away from focusing on the crime within our communities that only they can deal with and dealing with the human victims of those crimes.

These powers allow the DWP to apply to a court for warrants to enter a premises, conduct search and seizure and apply for and exercise production orders, with or without the police present. That clarifies the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. They provide the DWP with greater control over its own operations and ensure that police time is not spent undertaking administrative tasks on the DWP’s behalf.

However, I reassure the Committee that safeguards are in place to govern the use of these powers. First and foremost, court approval must be granted for all warrants. The requirements for a DWP warrant application will be as strict as those for a police warrant application. Furthermore, the DWP intends to exercise these powers exclusively in cases involving serious and organised crime. This is not novel. Similar powers are already being used by HMRC, the Food Standards Agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which can undertake search and seizure activity without needing to be accompanied by the police.

Amendment 93 would impose unique obligations on the courts that they do not face in respect of other government departments with similar powers. PACE powers do not require the individual exercising them to be appointed by the court and there is no clear reason for the DWP to be any different. DWP-authorised investigators, like others who exercise PACE powers, will be subject to the PACE code of practice relating to search and seizure activity and will be required to follow the same procedures and processes as the police when submitting a warrant application to the court. These are not standards set by the DWP; they are set out in PACE, which all bodies exercising these kinds of law enforcement powers must adhere to. Specialist training must be successfully completed before authorisation is given and only then can an authorised investigator exercise these powers on behalf of the Secretary of State. That approach ensures that the correct responsibilities are attributed to the Secretary of State and the courts.

On the question relating to the PSFA, I am advised that it is not that a constable necessarily has to be present, but somebody with those powers, who may not be a police officer but could be from the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, et cetera. As I said, the police do not always have to be there, if it is not necessary. There will be occasions when it will be necessary. For example, the previous Government published a fraud plan in which they recommended that powers of not only search and seizure but arrest be taken. We have decided not to take those powers, so if there needed to be an arrest, we would need to have police officers with us. If there were a risk of serious violence, again, the police would need to be present, but not otherwise.

On the question of force, the provisions set out in Clause 76 provide powers under PACE to enable DWP serious and organised crime investigators to apply for a search warrant to enter a premises, search it and seize items, with or without police involvement in England and Wales. The clause also enables authorised investigators to apply to a judge for an order requiring an individual suspected of social security fraud to provide certain types of sensitive information when relevant to the criminal investigation. It also provides for the use of reasonable force to conduct a search, such as breaking open a locked filing cabinet to search for materials. The clause provides that these powers can be used by an authorised investigator who is authorised by the Secretary of State.

To be clear, a warrant provides for the powers that can be deployed when that warrant is exercised. Our authorised investigators in DWP will not use reasonable force against people, although they may use it against property, such as breaking open a locked filing cabinet to retrieve a laptop or other evidence. However, the reason it has to be here is that, when the DWP applies for a warrant, that warrant must cover any activities that may need to be undertaken by either the DWP or the police, so although our investigators will not use reasonable force against people, it may be necessary for the police to do so when they are accompanying the DWP. That is why the legislation is drafted that way. If it were not, police out there on our warrant would not be able to use reasonable force and there may be occasions on which they need to do so. I hope that that clarifies matters for the noble Lord.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Can the Minister explain why the DWP needs that power but the PSFA does not? The two clauses in the Bill are otherwise identical and differ only in respect of the reasonable force element. If the PSFA does not need it, I do not understand why the DWP does.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The expectation is that we will be dealing with different kinds of crime. We are talking about serious and organised crime, where we will go out looking for evidence. We believe we do need these powers. If there is another argument behind that I am happy to write to the noble Lord. I have explained why the DWP needs them, and we clearly do need them in these circumstances because without them we could not conduct this work. The DWP has lots of experience because we already do this work; the police just have to go out with us, to be there and to do the searching. So we know what we need and therefore we know that we need these powers. If there is anything else I can add on the PSFA, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The Minister may have just answered my question, which is a slightly opaque one, perhaps. Is it a good assumption that in any search of a property by the DWP when it suspects fraud, members of the DWP will always go prepared with the necessary back-up, including the police or members of the NCA, if they suspect it is going to be a challenging search—or is that wrong?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

As I said, the police might need to be present if we felt there was a risk of any serious violence. If it was felt there might be a need for arrests or, as the noble Viscount has suggested, there was a possible risk of violence, the police would be asked to accompany DWP officers. I have given those assurances, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but, I hope, illuminating debate. I have concerns about these police powers being given to civil servants and I do not think I am alone in that respect. I am comforted, to some extent, by the fact that these will be used only in the cases of serious and organised crime. I wonder whether the solution, therefore, is to put that in the Bill and put that safeguard in place, because I think that would comfort most people who have the concerns that we have. Perhaps that is something that the Minister might be willing to discuss between now and Report. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

94: Schedule 4, page 95, line 8, leave out “items subject to legal privilege,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 4, page 101, line 15.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 94 to 97 are minor and technical in nature. In England and Wales, the common law does not permit access to material protected by legal professional privilege under any circumstances. However, relying on this common-law exclusion would not extend to Scotland. In addition, a different definition of legal privilege applies in Scotland. To ensure that the original intent is maintained, this position is now set out in a single provision within new Schedule 3ZD.

These amendments make it explicit that if the information being sought relates to personal records which involve confidentiality of communications that could be maintained in legal proceedings in Scotland, it cannot be seized, copied or obtained, et cetera. This ensures that the same protections for information of this type apply in Scotland as they would in England and Wales. I hope that these amendments are clear and I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support and take the chiding in the spirit in which noble Lords intended it.

Government amendments are a key part of the legislative process. Noble Lords will have seen them from time to time, allowing for the refinement and improvement of Bills as they move through Parliament. It is critical that the Bill’s provisions comply with the distinct legal jurisdiction of Scotland. Every effort has been made to ensure that this is the case. We have worked closely with the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland and with officials in the Scottish Government.

Following an additional review of the Bill prior to Committee, the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland identified the need for a minor amendment to ensure that the powers would operate in Scotland as intended. We felt it was important to make the law clear in the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords’ grace on this.

Amendment 94 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

95: Schedule 4, page 96, line 18, leave out “an item subject to legal privilege,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 4, page 101, line 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

98: Clause 85, page 51, line 27, leave out “, payment, credit”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendment to clause 85 remove unnecessary references to a payment or credit, both of which are within the relevant definition of “benefit” already as a result of section 121DA(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as we consider Amendments 99A, 99B and 99C, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, it is clear that these proposals are focused on the mechanisms of independent review and oversight within the Bill. Amendment 99A would ensure that the Secretary of State cannot limit the independent person’s review to only certain timeframes, thereby supporting the principle of comprehensive and impartial scrutiny. Amendment 99B would require the Secretary of State to provide information to the independent person for the purposes of a review, which could strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the review process. Amendment 99C would compel the Secretary of State to appoint independent reviewers not just in England but also in Wales and Scotland, ensuring a degree of consistency and regional representation in oversight arrangements.

These amendments appear to reinforce the Bill’s commitment to robust oversight and transparency, aligning with the existing provisions for independent inspection and review already outlined in the legislation. At the same time, it will be important to consider whether these changes might introduce additional administrative complexity or affect the flexibility of the Secretary of State to respond to evolving circumstances. As ever, the challenge is to strike the right balance between effective oversight and operational efficiency. I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on whether these proposals best serve the aims of accountability and good governance within the framework of this Bill. It is amazing what changing the word from “may” to “must” can do, but it can make a big difference and I wait to hear the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I hope that I can answer the questions that have been raised.

The first and most important piece of information is to remind the Committee that in the Commons my honourable friend the Minister for Transformation made it clear that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services will be commissioned to inspect the DWP’s criminal investigation powers for England and Wales and HMICS for Scotland. I hope that that is helpful. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that the reason why we chose HMIC is that for more than 160 years it has been carrying out independent scrutiny of law enforcement in England and Wales, including the police. There is no danger whatever that it will be any kind of box-ticking exercise, if HMIC is doing it. I am sure that she can be reassured on that front.

I hope that that shows the level of commitment that we have to the level of scrutiny. If we want to do it properly, HMIC is the body to scrutinise powers of this seriousness. But we have worked closely with HMICFRS and HMICS. We intend to operate in the same way as other law enforcement agencies that are subject to inspections by those bodies. What will happen is that, prior to each inspection, the DWP and the inspectorate body will mutually agree the period that the inspection will cover. That is to make sure that the inspection can cover all necessary activity that has been undertaken, which is a common way of operating. We have no reason to believe that it will not operate well in this case.

We understand that sharing information is essential and will obviously not seek to misrepresent or hold back any relevant information. The legislation as drafted allows us to share all relevant information. But it is essential that the Secretary of State retains discretion—for example, being able to choose not to provide information that may be particularly sensitive and where sharing it could have a detrimental impact, such as on the outcome of an active case. The DWP will fully support and co-operate with the inspection bodies and its reports will make clear if we did not do that. But we want to do so, to make sure that we can deliver on these powers to the right standard.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for answering one question for me. There will indeed be inspectorates. HMICFRS will cover England and Wales and HMIC will cover Scotland to enable us to have a different reviewer in the two places. I hope that, given those reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will not press her amendments.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As we draw this debate to a close, I return to the fact that these amendments are rooted in the core values of fairness, transparency, independence and accountability. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Palmer, for their support, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has not supported Amendment 99C.

The independent review mechanism outlined in Clause 88 should be one of the central safeguards of the Bill. It should ensure that the powers conferred are used proportionately, effectively and in the public interest. As it currently stands, that mechanism risks being weakened by loopholes and discretionary clauses that leave too much power in ministerial hands. I note the response about HMIC, but it still goes to the core that we want this Bill as a standalone and that those loopholes are necessarily closed.

Amendment 99A speaks to a fundamental concern: the right of the Government to define the terms of their own scrutiny. That is not a mark of confident democracy. A review that can only examine certain timeframes selected by the very people being reviewed is not a genuine safeguard; it is a managed narrative. True independence means giving the reviewer the authority to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not wherever the Secretary of State allows.

Amendment 99B is in many ways even more foundational. What is the value of appointing an independent person if that individual can be denied access to the very information that they need to do their job? We cannot have effective oversight if it depends on the good will of the department being examined. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said. There is a huge difference, as I know well from my own time in government, between the words “may” and “must”. “Must” is a minimal expectation if we are to uphold the principles of openness and integrity. Anything less risks turning independence into theatre and accountability into a form without substance.

Amendment 99C is about consistency. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, considers it unnecessary. However, if fraud knows no borders between England, Wales and Scotland, neither should scrutiny. We cannot rely only on the Secretary of State’s discretion to decide whether an independent review happens in one nation but not another, because that creates potential confusion and disparity and the appearance, if not the reality, of selective transparency. This is a probing amendment and I appreciate what has been said, which I will pick up on later. What we are aiming for is a duty to appoint independent reviewers across the devolved nations so that trust is not patchy but uniform across the United Kingdom.

When taken together, these amendments must represent a clear and coherent vision that government power must be matched by government accountability. That review must be more than just process. It must be meaningful, showing that we do not fear scrutiny but welcome it, because it is through scrutiny that public trust is earned and retained. The Government have rightly set out to tackle fraud and protect public money, but if the public are to believe that this effort is both rigorous and fair, the checks that we place on those powers must be equally robust. These amendments deliver that balance, not to obstruct but to uphold the values that any confident, responsible Government should share. I urge the Minister to consider the purpose and principle that these amendments seek to preserve. Let us not pass up the opportunity to make this legislation stronger, fairer and more trustworthy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his amendments and to all noble Lords who have spoken. We all want to ensure that, when someone who is subject to these debt recovery powers is vulnerable, we are aware of that and take appropriate steps to treat them as we should. Before I turn to the individual amendments, I shall recap on how direct deduction orders will operate and what safeguards are there, as this is relevant to the debate.

These powers are vital to recovering funds that are owed by debtors who are—just to remind the Committee—by definition not on benefits or PAYE. If they were, we would have other ways to deal with them. These are people who have some other source of income, owe the DWP money and have simply refused to engage with us at all, at any stage. That does not mean that none of them is vulnerable—of course, they may be—but this is the category of people that we are talking about. The department has long-standing powers to recover public money that has been wrongly paid in excess of entitlement, through deductions from benefits or earnings, but not for those in that category.

There are important new safeguards for these powers. They are there only as a last resort. First, before they can be used, multiple attempts at contact must be made, of different types. We must make at least four attempts to contact someone, at least twice by letter. We not simply trying once and giving up. We must have really tried to engage with people who simply do not engage with us all.

Secondly, when a direct deduction order is necessary, the DWP must be satisfied that any deduction, whether a lump sum or a regular deduction, will not cause the debtor, other account holder or their dependants hardship in meeting ordinary living expenses. That means that, legally, the DWP must ensure that there is enough money remaining in an account after a lump sum deduction to allow the debtor to meet their essential living needs.

In response to the noble Viscount, deductions must be fair in all the circumstances. This would include consideration of any vulnerabilities or additional costs related to living with a disability. The noble Viscount helpfully outlined what some of those will be. The point is that they must be particular to the individual. Each individual’s circumstances will be different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, not everybody who is poor is vulnerable, not everybody who is on benefits is vulnerable and not everybody who is disabled is vulnerable, necessarily. We need to understand their circumstances to know what is fair and ensure that they will not be pushed into hardship by a deduction.

Thirdly, to ensure that the deduction is made in that way, the amounts will be decided following an affordability assessment based on information shared by the debtor’s bank and any subsequent representations made by the individual or their representative if they need someone to speak for them. Legislation sets out the maximum amounts that can be deducted for regular deduction orders.

Fourthly, the Secretary of State can vary or revoke direct deduction orders in the light of a change of circumstances—for example, if the debtor had a change of income, made a new claim to benefit or something else of significance happened. Fifthly, when a direct deduction order is made, notice must be given to the bank and all holders of the account in question. If an order is still upheld after a review, or after considering information that has been presented, an individual who is not happy with that has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Finally, I remind the Committee that a code of practice for the new powers has been made available for noble Lords to review. This sets out revised guidance on ways to identify and support those who are vulnerable. Ahead of public consultation, our team continues to work on the code collaboratively with key stakeholders, including charities such as Surviving Economic Abuse and the Money and Pensions Service. These are important safeguards which I hope will alleviate noble Lords’ concerns.

On Amendments 99D and 109ZA, it is worth looking at what these amendments would do in practice. While we all share the desire to protect vulnerable groups, these amendments would place additional legal duties on the DWP to consider the impact of any vulnerabilities that a debtor may have, even when it could not be reasonably possible for the DWP to know. These requirements would be imposed without providing any new ways for the DWP to obtain that information.

As I have said, the direct deduction order power is one of last resort, aimed at those who are not on benefits or in PAYE employment, where all reasonable attempts to engage with the individual have failed. These are individuals who have not responded to repeated contact from the DWP’s debt management officials about their debt. In the absence of meaningful engagement from the debtor or their representative, the DWP will not be aware of their current personal circumstances. This puts the DWP in a difficult, if not impossible position, regarding the obligations that the proposed amendments would impose.

However, we need safeguards. The new safeguards that are introduced in this Bill, which I outlined at the start of my speech, alongside the existing safeguards and departmental processes for supporting those who are vulnerable, reflect a better approach to protecting vulnerable people. I shall now set out some of those existing safeguards and processes that are outside of this Bill, for the record.

Layers of support already exist within the DWP to support those who are vulnerable or have complex needs. They include proactive vulnerability checks at different points in the customer journey, and where vulnerable individuals are identified, to ensure that the necessary support and adjustments are put in place. Where any additional support or adjustments are identified by a DWP official or are disclosed by the individual, they are recorded on DWP systems to ensure that all officials know how best to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

100: Clause 89, page 56, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
“(i) the period mentioned in section 71ZK(6)(a) for P to appeal against the outcome of the review has passed without P bringing an appeal, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 89, page 56, line 31.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for some really good questions. These are exactly the kind of questions the Lords Committee should be asking on these sorts of issues, and I hope to give decent answers.

Should I ever get round to writing a book, somewhere in the credits it will say “Definitely not a malign person”. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that. It is the best compliment I am going to have today —you have to take them where you can find them in this business—so I thank her very much.

Amendments 102 and 122, as we have heard, want to restrict the use of the direct deduction power to circumstances where a court has determined it necessary and appropriate. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made her argument very clearly; I hope to try and persuade her that she does not need to press these amendments because I think we have a good case on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Yes, of course.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. As we have heard, this amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the department in response to notices, including bank statements, for the purposes of making a direct deduction order. However, getting this information from banks, including relevant bank statements, is not only instrumental to the effectiveness of the direct deduction power—it is crucial as a necessary and important safeguard to ensure the affordability of deductions, which is why we cannot accept this amendment.

I remind the Committee that the recovery powers proposed under the Bill are ones of last resort. They are for those not in receipt of benefit or in PAYE employment who have other income streams or capital and who repeatedly refuse to engage with the DWP to agree an affordable repayment plan. Without the information shared by the bank, the DWP would have no means to consider the debtor’s financial circumstances and would therefore be prevented from meeting other obligations and vital safeguards in the Bill, such as establishing an affordable deduction rate and avoiding causing hardship.

Put simply, if we do not know how much money someone has, we risk taking more than they can afford to repay at that time. The DWP is working collaboratively with the Money and Pensions Service on “ability to pay” checks, using bank statements and, where possible, the standard financial statement principles, to prevent financial hardship. These checks will consider the debtor’s essential living expenses, such as housing and utilities, and the Bill provides that direct deduction orders must not cause the debtor hardship in meeting these expenses.

Using bank statements in this way allows the deduction to be affordable and fair based on the individual circumstances, rather than a blanket approach of leaving a set amount in the account which, if not set high enough, could prevent the debtor from meeting those essential costs. The information gathered through these notices is proportionate and other provisions in the Bill restrict the use of bank statements obtained under this power. They are solely for the purposes of recovering the money that is owed. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it is a legal requirement not to use the information for any purpose other than debt recovery. That is spelled out in paragraph 3(10) of new Schedule 3ZA, inserted by Schedule 5 of the Bill.

I also remind the noble Baroness that all this can be avoided, including obtaining information from a debtor’s bank, if the individual agrees to get in touch to discuss and agree an appropriate repayment plan. In that case, we will not need bank statements because we can talk to them and ask for appropriate evidence, and they can provide evidence of other kinds, if that is sensible.

I will just pick up on a number of things. We are not interested in looking at what people spend their money on. It is worth reminding the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Committee that we have said different things at different times because there are different measures in the Bill. For the EVM over here, there is no transaction data—absolutely not, under any circumstances—and I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that we are looking only at the bank account into which we pay benefits. Fresh sentence: over here, the DWP’s debt recovery powers are aimed at different people, who are not on benefits as, by definition, the EVM is only for those on benefits. It is aimed at people who are not in PAYE employment, who owe the department money and who will not engage. If at least four attempts have been made to contact them but they simply have not got in touch, we can start to use the powers. In that case, we do have the power under our debt recovery powers to go to any bank account that they have; we are not limited to the bank account into which we pay benefits. As I have just said, we are not interested in looking at what people spend their money on. The power can be used to recover debt only in cases where somebody is not in receipt of benefits, as I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for responding in that manner, but it is rather like a court case where they say that the jury should disregard what happened. Once the information is out there, human nature makes it very hard to avoid it. If you are the DWP and you look at a bank account and see something that you should not, it is hard then to ignore it. The nature of man and woman is not to ignore things that they see. I am afraid that that just came to my mind: it is like these television dramas where the barrister or lawyer raises points, and the judge says, “The jury should disregard that”. You cannot disregard what you see in a bank statement even if you decide that you should not really have seen it. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I do not think the Minister is living in the real world.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I just remind the noble Lord that these DWP staff are authorised fraud investigators and they work on our fraud teams. In the nature of their work, as it is for anybody who works in fraud or law enforcement, they will end up seeing information, in the course of an investigation, that is not relevant. If he thinks that that means that that information will necessarily get into the outside world, then I ask him to rethink that. Our staff are professionally trained. They are professionals who operate under professional standards, authorisations and accreditation. They know what their job is. If staff come across information and the law quite clearly says that it may be used for only one purpose, it will be used for only that purpose.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I am sorry, but this does not take account of rogue members of the DWP. I am sure that 99.99% are exactly as the Minister says, but the idea that everyone will observe those rules is—I say again—not the real world. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

106: Schedule 5, page 107, line 12, at end insert “the bank where the account in question is held,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to Schedule 5, page 108, line 1 and Schedule 5, page 108, line 5, requires a notice under paragraph 5(1) of new Schedule 3ZA to be given to the bank in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever. The subject of Amendment 109, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is very much as it was in the fourth group, with the earlier amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. The Committee agrees on the objective in that area and we are simply going to talk about the best way to achieve that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this issue but again, for reasons not dissimilar to those articulated earlier, his amendment is not the best way to achieve this. However, I hope I can give him the assurance that he is looking for.

The DWP very much understands the importance of this issue. The noble Viscount is right that we have statutory obligations, but it is also embedded in the department. All our front-line staff are trained in addressing the issue of domestic violence, the training is regularly refreshed and we engage with stakeholders: the department take it very seriously.

We are committed to continuing to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse whenever they interact with the department. We have experience in this area, as well as existing guidance and processes for supporting victims of domestic abuse. As I say, the training our front-line management staff receive includes assessing affordability and identifying and dealing with vulnerable customers.

My officials have been looking in detail, specifically at how victim survivors could be impacted by the measures in the Bill, and working closely with key stakeholders, including the charity Surviving Economic Abuse, to ensure that the code of practice sets out the right approach to mitigating risks for victim survivors of domestic abuse. The current draft of the code of practice includes steps officials will take to identify signs of domestic abuse, where possible, to identify risks and to support the individual.

However, although I recognise the important intent behind this amendment, the fact is that it would apply to anyone affected by a direct deduction order, including debtors and non-debtors. Similarly to the earlier Amendments 99D and 109ZA from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, it does not require or enable the DWP to take any action to identify possible impacted individuals or provide any new means by which the DWP could do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My remarks will be brief. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for tabling Amendments 109A and 109B, which seek to introduce further safeguards into the process by which direct deduction orders are applied. These amendments are clearly driven by a legitimate concern. I am sure it is one that we all share; no one should be pushed into destitution—note that word—because of enforcement action taken by the state. We on these Benches broadly support the intention behind these amendments. As we expand the state’s ability to recover funds lost through fraud, we must do so in a way that is measured, proportionate and fair. We agree that the person on the receiving end of a direct deduction order must be treated with dignity and that the enforcement should never push a person below the threshold of subsistence.

However, while we agree on the principle, the Bill as currently drafted already contains sufficient protections to give effect to that principle. These amendments propose going further. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out, they would hard-wire specific mechanisms into the legislation itself with a mandatory affordability assessment and a fixed, safeguarded amount of £1,000 to be left in a person’s account. While we understand the motivation behind these proposals, we are not persuaded that they strike the right balance.

First, on the affordability assessment, the key question is not whether such considerations should be made—they absolutely should be—but whether placing a rigid requirement in the Bill is the best way to achieve it. Secondly, regarding the safeguarded sum, the proposal to set a fixed floor of £1,000 may be well intentioned but risks creating unintended consequences. For some individuals, that figure may be appropriate, but for others with significantly higher levels of debt or multiple fraudulent claims—of which there are a few, I am afraid—it may act as an unjustified barrier to recovery. A blanket threshold does not easily accommodate the complexity of individual circumstances.

We must not forget what this system is designed to do. We are talking about the recovery of public funds that were obtained unlawfully. These are not arbitrary deductions, but actions taken in response to fraud—in some cases, large-scale fraud—committed against the public purse. These funds belong not to the state in the abstract but to the taxpayers, the public and the people who rely on our public services. I remind the Committee of our duty to recover them on their behalf. We must exercise this power responsibly and we believe the Bill enables that. We must also ensure that we do not design a system that is so laden with friction that it fails to deliver on its core purpose of upholding the rule of law and restoring funds to the public where fraud has occurred.

These amendments raise important points, and we welcome the values that underpin them. We are committed to ensuring that the system is fair, proportionate and humane. We are confident that the existing provisions in the Bill, supported by robust guidance and operational safeguards, provide a sufficient framework to achieve those goals without introducing additional complexity that may compromise the system’s effectiveness.

Before the Minister thinks that I am writing yet another speech for her, I have some questions for her, which may also be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Take the case of someone who has taken money fraudulently but finds himself destitute through his own actions and might otherwise be on the streets, homeless —or worse, hungry. What help can the state give to him? What options are there? As a basic, I presume that he will still be eligible for universal credit, albeit, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, it would be subject to an agreed deduction for his misdemeanours. He would therefore still get support, assuming that he is not allowed to keep the £1,000 in his account. As the noble Lord said, the money and advisory services are there, and Citizens Advice is there. They are there to offer advice, but what support is there for such people in extremis? The Minister may say that the household support fund is also there and could be called upon, but that fund is subject to local help and is in the gift of local authorities to give out. Would destitute people come into that?

In conclusion, we do not support these amendments, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for prompting this important and short debate. We look forward to working together to ensure that the final system strikes the right balance between fairness and firm recovery of debt.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for raising this, and to the noble Viscount for his observations. I agree with my noble friend that affordability assessments should be conducted—he has made that clear, and we certainly want to do that as we think it is important—before a direct deduction order is issued, but we regard this amendment as unnecessary and duplicating existing provisions.

Paragraph 6 of new Schedule 3ZA, inserted by Schedule 5 of the Bill, provides that recovery must not cause hardship to the debtor, any joint account holder or dependant, and must be fair. Paragraph 3 requires the DWP to obtain, via an account information notice, bank statements covering at least the most recent three months in order to help make that assessment.

Further detail on how affordability will be assessed will be set out in the code of practice, a draft of which is available to Members; I am sure that my noble friend has had the opportunity to see it. It sets out the principles that will apply when affordability is assessed. They include ensuring that essential living expenses and other reasonable financial commitments are identified and protected. Officials are working closely with organisations such as the Money and Pensions Service to develop the code and, as required by Clause 93, a formal public consultation will be conducted on the draft before it is first issued.

As I have already outlined, affordability assessments must and will take place prior to enforcing a deduction order. These checks use banks statements, allowing DWP officials to consider expenses such as housing and utilities, enabling the deduction to be affordable, fair and based on individual circumstances, rather than a blanket approach of leaving a set amount in the account which could, if not set high enough, prevent the debtor from meeting those essential costs, as the amounts will vary from person to person.

For regular direct deduction orders, paragraph 6(3) of new Schedule 3ZA requires that any regular deductions made by the DWP each month must not exceed 40% of the monthly average amount credited to the account during the last period in which statements were assessed. Regulations will be made under paragraph 24(2)(d) to further set a maximum rate of 20% for all cases that have not arisen due to fraud.

These figures are maximums, rather than fixed deduction rates. Deduction rates will vary as officials take any affordability, hardship factors or other relevant circumstances into consideration. This approach mirrors that already used effectively in the DWP’s existing powers of deduction from earnings or benefits, and it is not obvious why it should be different in these circumstances. Given the safeguards outlined, requiring that £1,000 be left in one or more of the liable person’s bank accounts in every case where a DDO was sought is unnecessary, as the safeguards will already achieve the outcome intended by this amendment.

Regarding the specific questions, I reassure my noble friend that we are alive to the concerns of UK Finance, which we meet regularly. We are working with MaPS and relevant debt sector organisations on this. He mentioned a comparison with HMRC. HMRC has confirmed that its power is a one-off deduction of a tax debt, not a regular deduction. As a result, it does not assess customers’ affordability as part of the process. Its safeguard instead requires it to leave a minimum of £5,000 across the customer’s accounts to stop taxpayers being left with insufficient funds to cover basic needs. We are taking a different approach: we are assessing affordability, and we will have clear sight via bank statements of the debtor’s ability to repay.

In addition to the work we are doing with MaPS, we are working with relevant stakeholder organisations to make sure that our communications with debtors are clear, to help them understand what we are doing and to engage in the best possible way.

I remind the Committee that before any deductions are taken, account holders will be notified and given the chance to make representations. They can provide relevant information about their financial position and evidence relevant to affordability. Even at that stage, the department’s preference is to reach an agreed position with the debtor. If reasonable payment terms can be agreed and they are maintained by the debtor, the DWP will not make a deduction order.

My noble friend and I clearly want the same thing: to make sure that any recovery is affordable. We have taken different routes, but I hope that what I have said today will help him to accept that our route is doing the job and, in the light of that, he will withdraw his amendment.

I am sorry, I forgot to respond to the noble Viscount about destitution. I may have to come back to him on that, because it would depend very much on somebody’s circumstances. Although the household support fund is locally determined, some directions, steers and guidance are given by the centre by the DWP to local authorities. But the fund is significantly there to help with the cost of living. In relation to someone who is destitute and has committed fraud, people may still, if they have an ongoing entitlement to benefit, have been subject to a loss of benefit penalty as part of a process. So it would very much depend on the circumstances. But if I can find anything else useful, I should be happy to put that in writing to the noble Viscount.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount and my noble friend the Minister for comments on my amendments. It has been useful to receive a coherent assessment and description of how this process will work. I will read carefully what was said and consider whether it is an issue that needs to be pursued at a later stage. I thank those who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

110: Schedule 5, page 108, line 39, leave out “, or a method for calculating the amounts,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that a regular direct deduction order given by the Secretary of State must specify the amounts to be deducted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords and thank the noble Viscount for doing some of my job for me, for which I am always grateful.

I want to try to explain why the Government are doing this. Clause 92 inserts new Section 80C into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enact the “disqualification from driving” power. Schedule 6 inserts new Schedule 3ZB into the 1992 Act, containing the substantive provisions of the “disqualification from driving” power introduced in Clause 92. The introduction of this allows the DWP to apply to a court to disqualify a person temporarily from driving if they persistently and deliberately fail to repay their debt. It is therefore essential to boost the DWP’s ability to recover public money.

However, it is worth being clear that this is a power to deal with a small subset of debtors who are persistently frustrating the recovery practice—I will come back to that in a moment. Preventing an evasive debtor from driving unless they repay is within the Government’s control in a way that they cannot circumvent. While it will be used as a last resort, it is an additional and effective tool in cases where debtors simply refuse and evade repayment. As I think I said at Second Reading, the latest results from the UK transport survey showed that 74% of adults have a driving licence. Debtors are unlikely to want to be inconvenienced by being unable to drive. They can avoid disqualification and any other enforcement action by making voluntary repayments.

Schedule 6 sets out when the power may be used and how it will operate, including rules on the operation of suspended and immediate disqualification orders, variation and revocation of orders, as well as the grounds on which an order may be appealed. Appeals may be made to the appropriate court on points of law, including the terms of an order or the court’s decision to make, not make, vary or revoke an order. In accordance with Clause 90, this power will be used as a last resort and, as outlined in Schedule 6, only for the most serious cases for debts with at least £1,000 outstanding. The aim is to deter debtors from deliberately choosing to evade repayment, such as by moving their capital out of reach when they have the means to pay.

Only when all other attempts at recovery have failed, including the new direct deduction order, will DWP be able to apply to the court for a suspended disqualification order. If the court agrees that the debtor had the means to pay but did not repay without a reasonable excuse, it will order the debtor to make what it assesses to be affordable repayments. The debtor can avoid being disqualified by making these repayments set by the court. Only if the debtor does not comply with the court’s repayment terms can the DWP apply for an immediate DWP disqualification order. It is at that point—again, only if the court agrees—that the debtor can be disqualified from holding a licence for up to two years.

Before either a suspended or immediate order can be made, the debtor will have an opportunity to be heard by the court. It is important to note that the court cannot make either a suspended or an immediate order if it considers that the debtor has an essential need for their licence, such as that they need to drive as part of their job or to care for a dependant.

The role of the court throughout this process is an important safeguard, which we have included to ensure a balance between taking robust action against those who deliberately evade recovery and preventing undue hardship. We recognise that stopping someone from driving is a serious step, so my department has built in several other safeguards to give debtors every opportunity to avoid that. For example, missing a single instalment will not normally result in an immediate disqualification order and, even where someone becomes disqualified, they can get the right to drive back when they start making their repayments and the court considers that repayments are likely to continue. But persistent evaders who have the means to pay their debts will no longer be able to evade paying.

In response to my noble friend, I think he is challenging me as to why this is a good and effective means of doing it. I accept that it is unusual, but there is a small subset of the most evasive debtors: people who could pay and just will not. They might be, for example, debtors who transferred their money into cryptocurrency, or fraudsters who moved their capital to offshore accounts that the DWP cannot easily get at because they are outside our jurisdictions. It simply does not seem appropriate. If we cannot do anything else, there is one thing the state can do: suspend or remove their driving licence to pull them to the table. There may be some people for whom this is the only thing that works, so we want to keep it there in our armoury.

The power has been used effectively by the Child Maintenance Service. I do not know whether we can go into enough detail in the CMS debt management data to find out whether I can answer the questions that the noble Viscount is asking, but I will have a look at that. But certainly the Child Maintenance Service believes that this is an effective tool for bringing people to the table when nothing else works.

The Bill includes strong safeguards. The power will not and cannot be used where someone cannot afford to pay. The Bill is clear in paragraph 1(4) of new Schedule 3ZB, in Schedule 6, that the court must be satisfied that the person failed to pay “without reasonable excuse”. That clearly excludes cases where they do not have the means to pay the debt. Of course, the debt must also be of a certain value. Clause 90 says that it must not be “reasonably possible” to recover via other methods, including direct deduction orders, and that this can be used only after they have been given reasonable opportunities to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Baroness’s very full response. This is more of a probing question. We have obviously been debating and talking about driving licences. The ultimate punishment or sanction is prison, but we obviously do not want to exercise that if possible, both for the individual and because we do not want to clog up prisons. But what other sanctions could there be? We have been talking about driving licences, but I know that, in the Child Maintenance Service, taking away passports was raised as a possible sanction. What thoughts does the noble Baroness have on that front?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

We are not proposing removal of passports on this occasion.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her support. I am disappointed that the Conservatives, the party of individual freedom, did not see fit to support my argument.

There are a couple of issues that could be helpful to the debate which is likely to take place on Report. If it is possible to get further statistics from the Child Maintenance Service about people who were threatened and then gave in—I cannot totally see how that is possible—that would be good.

There is also the issue of the discriminatory nature of the punishment between different groups of people. As I have made clear, that is a practical objection, which is not why I am against this measure at heart. It would be useful in debate to know more of that practical question. As I have read the paper so far, it is about people who require a driving licence to carry out the functions of their job. However, my noble friend the Minister said that it would cover people who need to drive to work. Perhaps she could interrupt me if she is able to clarify.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

It is up to the court to determine if someone has an essential need for a licence. We have deliberately drawn it broadly so that the court can make that determination. Examples were given of somebody who needed a car to go to work or maybe had essential caring responsibilities. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I raised the possibility of somebody who lived somewhere so remote that there was no public transport. Again, that would be a case that they would make to the court. The position is deliberately drawn broadly to allow the court to make that determination.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Thank you; that is helpful. I withdraw my objection to Clause 92 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we now turn to what I believe is the last group for today. I will speak to Amendments 122A, 122B and 122C, which largely concern the code of practice and matters relating to the codes of practice as set out in Clause 93.

These amendments are not only sensible but vital if we are to ensure that the framework for exercising these powers is both transparent and democratically accountable. Fundamentally, our amendments recognise that the code of practice is not a peripheral procedural matter; it is a foundational document. It will guide how sensitive and powerful enforcement powers are exercised. It will shape the expectations placed upon investigators, the protections afforded to individuals and the standards against which public officials will be held. In short, it will govern the operational culture of the entire system.

Amendment 122A would ensure that the final version of the code is laid before Parliament before these new provisions in the Bill can come into force. I feel it is important at this stage to reiterate that we are being asked to grant significant new powers, including powers of entry, search, seizure and direct deduction, and it is therefore wholly appropriate that Parliament sees, and has the opportunity to scrutinise, the final version of the rules that will help determine how those powers are used. We welcome that, and thank the Minister—I perhaps should have said this earlier—for making good on her promise to release draft versions of the code to noble Lords ahead of Committee, although we feel that it is even more important that we have a binding assurance from the Government that a final version of these documents will be made available to Members of both Houses ahead of the Act coming into force.

Amendment 122B would further strengthen this by requiring a public consultation on the draft code before it is issued. I have a feeling that the Minister may have confirmed this earlier; nevertheless, I raise it now and await her reply. Consultation is not just a box-ticking exercise, it is a vital part of democratic policy-making, especially in areas where the state will be interacting with vulnerable people, seizing property or accessing private data. Consultation allows front-line practitioners, civil society groups and those with lived experience to offer their perspective and to flag where guidance may be unclear, safeguards may be weak and unintended consequences might arise. We must not underestimate the value of that input.

We have said many times that our primary goal and function throughout Committee is ensuring that the Government come out with a Bill that is ready to go. We want a public authorities Act that combats fraud effectively and deters criminality in the future but also works for the people who will undertake and be subject to its provisions. It really is important that we get all these balances right and that we incorporate these review mechanisms now, so that the Bill is ready to go once it becomes law.

Finally, Amendment 122C would ensure that any subsequent change to the code is not only laid before Parliament but subject to parliamentary review. This is a particularly important point, because it speaks to the danger of incremental change, where guidance can be revised behind closed doors, without scrutiny or proper debate. These codes are not trivial; they are the operational blueprint of this entire regime. If we in this House and the other place are to fulfil our role as scrutineers and custodians of civil liberties, we must retain the ability to oversee how these powers evolve.

If the Government’s position is that these powers will be used proportionately, lawfully and with care, they should have no difficulty in agreeing that the rules that govern them should be open to parliamentary oversight, public consultation and full transparency. That is not a constraint; it is a safeguard for both the public and the state.

As I have said before, we are of course all agreed on the need to tackle fraud, but we must also agree on the need to exercise these new powers with clarity, accountability and respect for the values that underpin our legal and constitutional system. We believe that these amendments would help to ensure that. I urge the Minister to accept them, or, at the very least, to recognise their merit and return with similar provisions that enshrine the same principle.

Parliament broadly supports what the Government are doing, and if the Government intend to exercise these powers responsibly, with adequate safeguards, consideration and the principle of proportionality that I and my noble friend Lady Finn have returned to several times in Committee, I assume and hope that Parliament will have no problem supporting what the Government do in their code of practice. However, parliamentary oversight, to ensure that the Government are tied to these important principles not just now but in the future, is an important safeguard which we feel must be made explicit in the Bill.

In conclusion, these are reasonable, proportionate and constructive proposals. They would not hinder the Bill’s effectiveness; rather, they would make the Bill more effective once it comes into force. I see that, miraculously, there is no one else wishing to support—I am sure it is no reflection on my remarks—but I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s closing remarks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of a crowd of supporters, I thank the noble Viscount for setting out his amendment so clearly. I hope that my remarks will reassure him and give him the confidence that he does not need to press ahead with these amendments.

Amendments 122A, 122B, 122C and 129 seek to compel the Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation on the DWP’s code of practice for the debt recovery powers, to lay a final code before Parliament before the powers in this Bill come into force and to subject any changes to the code to parliamentary review. Amendment 128 would require the Minister for the Cabinet Office to lay a code of practice before Parliament on the administration of penalties before the PSFA’s powers under Part 1 can come into force.

The provision made for a code of practice in Clause 93 is important for the DWP’s debt recovery measures, providing transparency and reassurance on how the debt recovery powers will be operationalised. However, we think these amendments duplicate existing provisions in the Bill and therefore are not necessary.

The DWP’s code of practice on debt recovery powers will complement the provisions in the Bill, setting out guidance and key principles, including how and when the new recovery powers will be used. Extensive collaboration continues to take place with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Money and Pension Service, the charity Surviving Economic Abuse and the finance sector, to develop this code of practice. The purpose of this engagement is to ensure the code provides relevant operational guidance on matters such as vulnerability and to give clarity for debtors subject to the powers and their representatives. We are grateful to all organisations for their helpful collaboration and guidance.

Drafts of all the DWP codes of practice have been made available for review by noble Lords upon request. While there is no requirement on us to provide drafts of these codes alongside the legislation or even to legislate to produce one, we understand their importance and want to be transparent with Parliament. This is also why new Section 80D(6), as inserted by Clause 93, already requires us to carry out a formal public consultation before the first code is published and to lay each issued version before Parliament. In response to the noble Viscount’s questions, the Government are consulting on all codes. Both the DWP and the PSFA will publish them before first use.

We have already said in terms of the debt, this will be done before the new debt powers in Part 2 of this Bill are used. However, I should note that Amendment 129 as drafted would prevent all the other provisions in the Bill that are not subject to the debt code of practice coming into force until the debt code was issued. I am not sure if that was the intention of the noble Viscount, but it would obviously be disproportionate and unnecessary.

It is also not clear from the amendment what parliamentary review of future changes to the code would entail but I am going to assume the noble Viscount would like Parliament to have the opportunity to challenge or scrutinise the code each time it is updated. If so, that would not be necessary or proportionate. The code will be revised periodically to keep it up to date with operational considerations and processes, and the Bill makes provision for each issued revision to be laid before Parliament.

The noble Viscount mentioned the importance of Parliament seeing the rules. It is worth understanding that the debt code of practice does not contain statutory provisions, nor does it place obligations on others. Rather, it sets out how the department will operationalise the new recovery powers. The Bill clearly sets out in considerable detail the legal obligations introduced. Other substantive provisions set out in regulations will, of course, be subject to normal opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. I am also unaware of any precedent for revisions to a code of this nature to be considered by Parliament or subject to its approval.

Amendment 128 takes us back to the PSFA in Part 1 of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that we have already discussed Clause 62, which makes provision for the PSFA to produce a code of practice that will explain how and why civil penalties will be calculated and imposed to ensure the powers are used transparently and reasonably. This clause stands part of the Bill.

A draft of the PSFA code of practice has also been provided to noble Lords, as was promised in Committee in the other place. As I mentioned, the PSFA intends to consult widely on the code of practice prior to the publication of the finalised draft, which will be before the first use of the penalty powers. Indeed, Clause 62(4) states:

“The Minister must lay the code of practice, or any reissued code of practice, before Parliament”.


I have outlined that the provisions already in the Bill go above and beyond what is required for legislation of this kind because we recognise the importance of the code of practice and have done so in the spirit of transparency. With those assurances, I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.