Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Universal Credit: Two-child Limit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on work incentives of lifting the two-child limit in Universal Credit.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are determined to lift children out of poverty, and removing the two-child limit is the fastest and most cost-effective way to do so. The benefit cap is still in place, encouraging parents to take responsibility and work towards financial independence. Our approach balances fairness and provides a strong safety net without undermining the incentives to work.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, recent international evidence found that unconditional cash transfers increase fertility. Families claiming health-related benefits are not capped, so even these workless families will get UC for every child, again affecting work incentives. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that money-per-child tax credits increased births by 15% and decreased contraceptive use among beneficiaries. Have the Government assessed whether lifting the two-child limit will incentivise more births in benefit-dependent households, and whether many of the 450,000 children this measure intends to lift out of poverty would not otherwise have been born?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have seen no evidence that the two-child limit had an impact on family size. For example, 47% of households affected by the two-child limit were not claiming universal credit when any of their children were born. In other words, things happen; people set out, they have children and something happens. Maybe someone loses their job, they are bereaved, their spouse leaves them, or they get sick and cannot work. The welfare state should be there to support people, both into work and in work, but it is also there to support them when they cannot work. We already know that some 60% of households affected by this are in work. Our strategy is to make sure we do all we can to get people into work, get them to develop in work and support them, but we are there as a safety net when they cannot do so.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, academic research has found that the two-child limit had no positive employment effect and that parents living in poverty are pushed further from the labour market because of stress, insecurity and the sheer hard work of struggling to get by. Does my noble friend therefore agree that a decent social security system can support effective job-seeking and plays an important role in tackling child poverty, as the child poverty strategy recognised?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a really important point about the scarring effects of poverty. Our aim is to make sure that everyone who can work, does, with all the help they need to do that. That is what this Government have been doing. We are investing heavily in childcare to make it possible to work, making sure wages pay enough so that work is a good thing, and supporting children.
We know that when children grow up in poverty, things get worse for them. They are less likely to work as adults, and they earn 25% less at the age of 30. Even if some parts of the House are not persuaded on the grounds of the importance of the individual child, this is an investment in the future of our country. No other G7 country has a policy like this and there is a reason for it. We cannot compete on the world stage, grow our economy or create prosperous futures for our kids if we do not enable them to grow up thriving and healthy.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Does the Minister agree that this is not about getting people back to work; it is about improving living standards and making sure children are safe, and that this Question, which tries to link people getting into work with this benefit, is completely ridiculous?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think I have made my views clear on the impact of this policy. It is, in essence, a failed social experiment which has been pushing 100 children a day into poverty. We simply cannot allow that to happen. We want to support families. Most parents want to work to support their kids. Already, 84% of parents are in work—that is what people do. I used to work with single parents, who would say, “Even when it’s really a struggle, I want my kids to see this is what you do when you grow up”, but many people face barriers to work, and it is our job to make that possible. If you cannot afford childcare, how can you get to work? If you are not paid enough to be able to make life even bearable, how can you do that? The social security system should be there to support those who cannot work, but for those who can, to make it possible and to help them have a decent standard of living when doing so.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, around £450 million is owed to the Child Maintenance Service by absent fathers and some absent mothers. Some 160,000 children would be lifted out of poverty if the defaulting parents paid what they owed to the Child Maintenance Service. Does the Minister agree that is not right for the taxpayer to pick up the burden owed by defaulting parents and that the Child Maintenance Service must get that money from the parents?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the great advantage is not an either/or. The wonderful thing about child maintenance is that it does not impact on somebody’s social security, so if someone is working and getting some universal credit, maintenance tops that up further. The Child Maintenance Service does an astonishing job in many, sometimes very challenging, circumstances. Here is one simple statistic: since the Child Maintenance Service was set up in 2012, it has collected 93% of all the maintenance owed, but I am sorry to say that there are some parents who simply do not want to pay for their children. The Child Maintenance Service has astonishing powers. It will go after them, and it will keep after them, but we should encourage everybody to do the right thing: pay for your children, go out there and make it possible for them to have a decent life.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, if this policy is such a good idea, why was the Whip removed from seven Labour MPs in the other place when they voted in favour of it last year?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord knows more than I do about the state of the economy that this party inherited when we came into government. We have dealt with all the challenges that his Government left behind. Chief among those was the state of—not just support for children—the welfare state. We had huge numbers of people who had been abandoned. Under the last Government, the bill went up by £88 billion. This Government came in with a budget. We invested £1.5 billion in employment support; we have reformed Motability and universal credit. We are going to make a difference. We care about children.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, can we come back to the original Question? We have had some very spurious statistics about fertility and contraception. Does the Minister agree that contraception has been hugely important in getting women back to work and earning money?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for calling me back to order. The availability of contraception has been transformative for women, and we should all recognise that. Being able to have control over their fertility makes an enormous difference to the choices that women make. For many of them, it means they can work and manage family size most of the time. However, we want to enable mothers and fathers both to have children and to work. That is the job of the state. Mothers should not have to choose between having kids and having a job. Families should never have to do that. The job of the state is to make both possible for the sake of those families and those children.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, child poverty is undoubtedly a serious issue, and the steep drop in the number of children being born in this country is perhaps even more serious. Last week, we learned that the average cost of raising a child has now risen to £249,000, according to research by Moneyfarm, which may explain why an increasing number of working parents choose to have just one child or none at all. Down the line, this means a shrinking workforce in an ageing population. What is the Minister’s view on this?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a really important point, which is that we need as a country to make sure that we prioritise the cost of living and enabling people to earn enough. It should be possible to go out to work and earn enough to support your family, but that is one reason why we think it is important to invest in appropriate levels of social security. Crucially, we have to help people to develop skills. We want people to get into work, but we do not want them stuck on the lowest-paid work. We have increased the national minimum wage and invested in childcare and free school meals—we are doing all the things to make it possible to do the right thing. However, we need to go further. We need to see people in this country in higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs that will help them, grow our economy, and create opportunities for their children in due course.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, can I bring the House back to the original intention behind the two-child limit? It was to make the benefits system fairer to taxpayers who support themselves and their families solely through work. It encouraged parents on benefit to make the same financial choices about family size as those not on benefits. With the Government’s poverty argument in mind, the IFS has said that reversing the two-child limit is “not a silver bullet”. It said that the benefit cap will
“wipe out the gains for some children in the … poorest families”,
as 70,000 more households are affected by the cap. Surely supporting parents into work and into quality jobs is much more important for reducing child poverty. Finally, the IFS says that raising the employment rate to 80% from the current 75% would lift up to 350,000 children out of poverty.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, that is why the Government have set that as their target. I say to the noble Viscount that the whole point about this is that it is not a choice. It is not a question of either supporting children or helping parents to go into work. Supporting families makes work possible. Most parents want to work. Our job is to make that possible, so we have done that. We have invested in expanding free school meals to everyone on universal credit, including those in work; we have raised the national living wage, and we have put in more help for childcare—30 hours a week for parents of preschoolers—and more help for childcare in universal credit. Children deserve the best possible start in life and their parents deserve the best chance to have a decent life. We want to do both.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument. Subject to the approval of this Committee, these regulations will be another significant step forward in the reform of our occupational pensions framework, building on the foundations laid by the Pension Schemes Act 2021 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations 2022. The primary purpose of these regulations is to extend the legal framework for collective money purchase schemes—commonly known as collective defined contribution, or CDC, schemes—to allow multiple unconnected employers to participate. Until now, CDC schemes have been restricted to single employers or groups of connected employers.
I have been advised that there are two minor drafting errors in Schedule 2 to the SI as laid in draft, resulting in two cross-headings before paragraph 2 where there should be only one and a repetition of “regulation” in paragraph 2. The intention is for these to be corrected in the version that is made so that there is a single cross-heading reading “General” and a single appearance of the word “regulation” in paragraph 2. I apologise for these errors, but I assure the Committee that these corrections do not change the legal meaning of Schedule 2 in general or paragraph 2 in particular.
Before I move on to the detail of this instrument, it may be helpful if I give some context. The Pension Schemes Act 2021 provided the statutory framework for CDC schemes in the UK. The Government believe that CDC schemes have an integral role to play in addressing the challenges faced in our pensions system, so long as the guiding principle is to ensure that we protect the interests of members. Although good progress has been made, four in 10 working-age people are under-saving for their retirement. CDC schemes can help address this issue: by pooling longevity and investment risk across the membership, such schemes have the potential to target higher investment returns for their members than a DC scheme. CDC schemes also have potentially infinite investment horizons and no need to lifestyle investments, which means they can invest productively for longer. Industry modelling suggests that CDC schemes could boost retirement income by anywhere between 25% and 60%. The Committee will agree, I am sure, that if such increases in returns were realised, CDCs could really help address the issue of inadequate retirement incomes.
CDCs can support the wider economy, too. Longer investment horizons mean greater investment in vital UK infrastructure and the technologies of the future, such as renewable energy. Pooling can also shield savers from much of the uncertainty and risk faced by members of DC schemes, which is especially important as they approach retirement. CDC schemes offer members a seamless transition from saving into receiving a trustee-managed retirement income. We know that many people do not want—and, indeed, feel ill-equipped—to make complex financial decisions at retirement. Some 72% of DC members want a pension income yet 50% of pots are taken fully as cash, exposing them to individualised longevity risk. CDC schemes provide a target income for life and will target at least inflationary increases in member benefits at a scheme’s outset, helping members’ money keep pace with the cost of living through their retirement.
The Government want to ensure that as many savers as possible can take advantage of these benefits. That is why we have introduced this legislation. This instrument opens the door for broader adoption of CDCs: it will allow different, unconnected employers to participate in the same scheme, including smaller employers who lack the scale or expertise to go it alone. It also opens the door to CDC being a solution for specific sectors and for commercial schemes. For employers, the benefits are clear. Their liability is no greater than in a DC scheme, with contributions being made in the same way. Yet, with the aforementioned benefits, CDC schemes can be a valued employee benefit, allowing employers both to attract and retain talent in a competitive labour market.
I will now dive into the detail of this instrument, and there is, of necessity, plenty of detail. Despite the successful launch of the Royal Mail collective plan last year, CDC remains a relatively novel concept. It is critical that employers and their employees can have confidence in CDC pensions. The Government therefore make no apology for this instrument setting a high bar for entry. The robust authorisation and supervisory framework introduced by this legislation means employers can be confident they are joining well-run, well-governed schemes.
Part 2 of this instrument removes the exclusion in the Pension Schemes Act 2021 which limits the schemes that can be collective money purchase schemes to schemes used, or intended to be used, by single or connected employers. This allows for the creation of unconnected multiple employer schemes. Part 2 also amends the definition of a qualifying scheme, so that a broader range of organisations can set up a collective money purchase scheme. This will enable commercial organisations to establish unconnected multiple employer schemes.
A scheme applying for authorisation must satisfy the regulator that it meets the authorisation criteria. These criteria are listed in Section 9(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. Part 2 amends the existing authorisation criteria in the 2021 Act and thereby creates additional criteria, specifically for unconnected multiple employer collective money purchase schemes. We have identified persons that we consider will have important roles in unconnected multiple employer CDC schemes and have brought these people within the scope of the “fit and proper persons” test, so that they are subject to appropriate scrutiny.
Regulation 10 amends the 2021 Act to require that the scheme has a single scheme proprietor meeting specific criteria and the specific requirements set out in new Section 14C of that Act. As we are seeking to extend CDC provision to unconnected multiple employer CDC schemes, we know there will be new entities involved in the operation and funding of these new types of CDC scheme. We want to ensure that any financing required to meet relevant costs is credible and realisable, so that it is available at the point of need. Therefore, the scheme proprietor’s ability to deliver such financing will need to be assessed by the regulator, both at authorisation and on an ongoing basis.
Regulation 10 of the instrument also inserts a business plan requirement under new Section 14A of the 2021 Act. The scheme proprietor would be required to prepare, maintain and submit a business plan to the regulator, which will include the key financial information for its financial sustainability assessment. The detailed content of the business plan is set out in newly inserted Schedule 1B to the 2021 Act.
These regulations will permit schemes that intend to operate on a commercial basis. This will involve acquiring new business through the promotion or marketing of their scheme. To mitigate the risk of schemes overpromising to gain a commercial advantage, or mis-selling, we are introducing a new promotion or marketing authorisation criterion for these schemes. The requirement is that no person has carried out promotion or marketing of the scheme that is unclear or misleading without rectification, and that the scheme has adequate systems and processes for ensuring that its promotion or marketing is clear and not misleading.
We also want trustees of these schemes to focus entirely on the interests of the scheme members and to have complete autonomy to do so. If the trustee were also to act as a person who promotes or markets the scheme, or as the scheme’s CFO, it would detract from that responsibility and create a clear conflict of interest. Regulation 5 makes a separation of these roles a criterion for authorisation. The Government’s intention is that running an unconnected multiple employer CDC scheme as a closed scheme should always be an option open to trustees, where it is viable to do so, and to the extent permitted under wider legislation. Regulation 5 therefore inserts a new authorisation criterion into the 2021 Act to ensure that trustees can choose this option if appropriate.
Finally, on Part 2, Regulation 6 imposes a mandatory deadline of 24 months from authorisation by which an authorised unconnected multiple employer CDC scheme must start being operated. This is to deter speculators. We want only people or organisations that are fully committed to providing well-run and soundly designed unconnected multiple employer CDC schemes to apply for authorisation.
Part 3 of this instrument supplements the meaning of “connected” in Section 49(2)(a) of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. This is relevant for determining whether a collective money purchase scheme is a single and connected employer scheme or an unconnected multiple employer scheme and therefore which of the two legislative frameworks applies to it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for the handful of questions that has been offered up. I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, disappointment that there are not hordes of colleagues here wanting to question these regulations. They are extremely important and utterly fascinating, but there is no accounting for taste—what can we say? I am very grateful to him and to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for being here, asking such excellent questions and keeping me on my toes. I am going to try to work my way through them.
It is worth saying at the outset that my noble friend Lord Davies had quite a nice analogy about moving into a house. I moved house a year ago, and he is absolutely right—I now realise there should be power points in the middle of my kitchen where I actually use my devices and none of them are there. However, the reality is that there have to be some power points; some decisions have to be taken. At some point down the line, I may decide on additional power points and just have them put in. There may be new lights in the house, but we have to start off with lights, and we may add more lights later.
We have gone to considerable care to make sure that the system is set up as robustly as possible, but we will adapt and learn as we have experience from this. That is an important question, but it is one I am happy to offer reassurance on.
We think that CDCs are a type of money purchase because there is a type of money purchase benefits in the legislation. They are covered by the legislation applying to money purchase benefits and not DB benefits. I can see him shaking his head; I have failed to persuade him, but I will keep trying on subsequent questions.
My noble friend mentioned in passing that there are lots of different kinds of legislation and asked how they join up. I assure him they absolutely do join up. The Government have a vision for the pensions landscape. Most of these issues are coming in stages; for example, we have made our views known; we have had comments and clear steers from the Chancellor; we have had the pensions investment review, which set out the landscape, and as a result of that, we have the Pension Schemes Bill, which starts next week and which he and I are looking forward to so much. That will make the necessary adjustments to the landscape so that the Pensions Commission, which is doing its work on issues such as adequacy, can make sure that if savers, or indeed employers, are encouraged to invest more, or in different ways, the market is fit for it at that point.
These things do connect; I accept that they are complicated. One of the challenges is that pensions are very complicated, and there is a lot of money at stake, and therefore it matters—he raised the point about regulation—that we get that absolutely right.
My noble friend mentioned in passing the question about retirement CDCs. He will be aware the consultation has just closed and so more information on that will be coming out soon. He asked about whether CDC schemes will be captured by things such as the scale requirements in the Pension Schemes Bill. Because CDC schemes are a new and innovative development with the potential to offer improved outcomes, they will need to have a degree of scale and a long investment horizon to enable them to invest in a wider range of assets, including productive assets. It is right to give this new market the space to develop with confidence, but we are going to keep the requirements for these schemes under review as the market develops.
He asked about how the legislation will ensure fairness between members of different employers. Regulation 40 specifies that any adjustment to benefits that may need to be made must be applied to all members “without variation”. Regulation 40 also requires that benefit rates must be determined on the principle of actuarial equivalence and that, as he will of course be only too aware, is achieved when the expected accrual and expected contribution levels are equal over a period of time. That prevents new entrants unfairly subsidising existing members and avoids cross-subsidies between employers, which could, for example, happen if one employer had a younger workforce than another.
Both he and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked about communication to members of CDC schemes. The regulations require schemes to inform members regularly and clearly that the rate or amount of benefits provided under the scheme is not guaranteed and can fluctuate. This includes providing this information at joining, annually and in retirement. CDC schemes are also required to have adequate systems and processes for communicating with members and must provide information in their authorisation application about monitoring them to help ensure the systems and processes remain effective. To ensure transparency, key scheme information must be made available on a publicly available website, including the scheme rules, a summary of the scheme design and information about the most recent actuarial evaluation of the scheme.
My noble friend commented about whether the regulation is all too burdensome or too hard to join, but as in DC schemes, members will bear all the risks of the CDC scheme in accumulation and decumulation. So, we think it is only right that we make sure these schemes are well-designed, well-run and resourced properly so that employers, members and the Pensions Regulator can have confidence in the scheme at authorisation and on an ongoing basis.
My noble friend raised the question of commercial interests. I know he was not necessarily challenging there being commercial providers; it was more about the language and how that is understood. We have worked quite hard to make sure that the authorisation criteria require a clear separation between the trustees and those funding the scheme, promoting the scheme and trying to make a profit out of it. The promotion and marketing authorisation criterion mitigates against the risk of overpromising to gain a competitive advantage, as I said in my opening speech. Although my noble friend does not like the term “proprietor”, the financial sustainability requirements are designed to prevent that person passing on to members the costs of setting up and operating the scheme.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for spelling out the code of practice; we look forward to seeing that. I remain quite surprised that the Pensions Commission will finally report as late as spring 2027. I cannot believe it is going to take that long, despite the fact that pensions are generally known to be quite technical and detailed. I am not expecting the noble Baroness to comment on that, but I just wanted to put it on record. The noble Baroness did not answer my question about surpluses, and I am very happy to be written to about that. Perhaps the main question I wanted to ask, which the noble Baroness also did not answer, is about membership take-up at Royal Mail. What was the rate of take-up for the Royal Mail scheme?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
On the question of surpluses, the regulators will ensure that a scheme has sufficient financial resources through a range of key mechanisms centred around the role of a scheme proprietor, robust planning and ongoing regulatory oversight. The Pensions Regulator must be satisfied that the scheme is financially sustainable before it can be authorised. That would obviously involve a rigorous assessment of its expected costs, income and the strategy for recovering any shortfalls. The schemes accounts have to be submitted to the regulator on an ongoing basis to give transparency. I am not sure that that does answer his question on surpluses, but if I have an answer, I will write to him.
On the membership take-up of the Royal Mail scheme, 110,000 people have joined and around 700 have opted out. I hope that answers that question, and that I have answered all the other questions. I thank both noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. This instrument will allow CDC schemes to play an integral role in the future of pensions in this country, affording potentially millions of savers access to the benefits they offer. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Carer’s Allowance: Overpayments
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I acknowledge the Government’s positive response to the recommendations in the independent review.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government accept that between 2015 and summer 2025, the guidance on whether and how to average earnings in carer’s allowance did not accurately reflect the statutory position. We will therefore be reassessing earnings-related overpayment cases that occurred between 2015 and September 2025. Where it is found that overpayments were lower than originally calculated, carers will have their debts reduced or cancelled entirely, with the Government refunding any money already paid. We will set out plans for doing this in early 2026.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response and for her patience at my persistence. After the problems for carers were ignored for so long by the previous Administration, and after systems did not respond to the clear evidence about the distress caused, carers naturally have a high level of mistrust about how their benefits are administered. Does my noble friend agree that rebuilding that trust must be a priority and that any changes must be completely transparent, with carers consulted and informed at every step of the way?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question and for her work. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country; the Government greatly value them and the work they do. Carers are also fortunate to have some excellent advocates, including many Members of this House—and I think we would probably all acknowledge that supreme among them is my noble friend, whose work in this area has for so very long been recognised by us all.
Carer’s allowance provides support to around 1 million people and, for most of those who receive it, the experience is positive and the rules are clear. But my noble friend is right that, when we came into government, it became clear that there were far too many cases where working carers had been left with large overpayments to be repaid. That is why we commissioned an independent review of earnings-related overpayments. We are very grateful to Liz Sayce for her recommendations, but also to her advisory panel and especially to the unpaid carers who shared their experiences to make that right. We have accepted or partially accepted 38 of the 40 recommendations in the report, we have begun working on many of them already, and we will set out the details in the new year. We will be very clear and transparent: many of the recommendations regard reviewing how we write to people, how we make things clear and how transparent we are. Above all, when the Government make mistakes, they should acknowledge them and put them right, and that is what we are doing.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
When we discussed this matter a few days ago, I raised with the Minister the issue of the so-called cliff edge, whereby if you earn 1p over the earnings limit you lose the whole allowance. The Minister replied with characteristic sympathy, but she said that modernising the system would take “some years”. The independent review referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, takes a totally different view. It says that addressing the impact of a cliff edge is urgent, and asks the department to be
“creative in its thinking about options for short term changes to remove or reduce this impact more quickly”.
Does the Minister accept that recommendation?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, what I said last time we discussed this is absolutely the Government’s position. For the reasons I explained then—I will not go back into them again—carer’s allowance is traditionally not a classic means-tested benefit, so we want to find ways to tackle this. It will take time, because everything about the system has been built in ways that were designed around a simple, non-means-tested benefit. However, we have already done significant things to make a difference; one of the most important of those was to raise the level at which people could earn by the largest cash amount since the benefit was created. This means that if you earn less than 16 hours a week at the national living wage, there is no problem at all. We have also gone through to make sure that most of the ways in which people have fallen foul of the system can be corrected. For example, we have taken action on guidance and communications, and we are now checking automatically all the data that comes in directly from HMRC. We are doing all the things that can be done in the short term.
Much as I do not want to say this, the noble Lord will have to be patient. To be able to remove a cliff edge, the first requirement is to automate earnings coming from HMRC, which cannot be done overnight. We have already begun the work and we are looking for all possible workarounds in the short term. This problem has been around for a long time and no one paid any attention. We spotted it, we are taking action and we will sort it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. The Sayce review identified the problem. I am reminded, sadly, of Lewis Carroll’s “jam tomorrow”, a promised reward that is often postponed. I am not really encouraged by the point that it will be dealt with in 2026. I ask the Minister to be more definite and give us a date in 2026 when this will happen, so that it is not, in Lewis Carroll’s words, “jam tomorrow”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if I could give the noble Lord a precise date on which all the computer systems and all the systems will have changed, I would be glad to do it. Let me put this in context: we estimate that about 15% of people who get a carer’s allowance payment are also in paid work and 90% of people who reported earnings did so without difficulty, so we are talking about a very important but specific subset of people, most of whom had fluctuating earnings, which this is designed to address. The biggest challenge in the short term is to make sure that we have clear guidance, we communicate with people, they know what to tell us and we are able to manage that. There is a big prize at the end as we modernise all DWP systems to get this right. A lot of the improvements will be made by really old-fashioned analogue systems—by making sure that we have the right information, communicate well with carers and make it as easy as possible to get the information. Those recommendations may not be exciting, but they actually make a lot of difference.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, given that some 185,000 unpaid carers will now have their carer’s allowance overpayments reviewed following the independent report, will the Minister set out how these carers will be notified of the reassessment process and what steps the Government will take to ensure that communications are clear, timely and accessible?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her important question. Our data suggests that there are around 212,000 overpayment cases in the relevant period, between 2015 and September 2025. We will set out the details in the new year, but we plan to review every case to understand where mistakes were made. Cases that were affected specifically by our unclear guidance will have their overpayment reassessed. If the review confirms that the money was not due, we will make an appropriate refund or reduction. I should say that if it were to result in a higher overpayment, we will not ask anyone for additional money—I just want to reassure anyone who is listening. If the review confirms that the person still owes money, we will give the usual support to make sure that it can be repaid appropriately, because it is not to do with this question.
I want to reassure those who are listening that nobody needs to get in touch with DWP at the moment. Our intention is to work through the cases. We have data for most of these cases and we will contact people proactively. We will set out in the new year how that process will work and what we will do in any remaining cases, but no one needs to get in touch. Please do not phone us at the moment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the independent review and the Government’s response, but what will happen to those carers who have already been convicted of benefit fraud as a result of the mistakes that have been made? Why did the Government decide not to offer compensation to those who have already been so badly affected and whose lives have, frankly, been made a nightmare by the mistakes?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I said that we will set out in the new year the details of how the reassessment is going to work. We will be working our way through all the cases. I do not know how many, if any, of the cases resulted in prosecution. We will work through what will happen in cases where people, for example, either had overpayments or may have had a civil penalty or even possibly another form of administrative penalty. On compensation, it is not unusual for there to be reassessment exercises when guidance or other systems are found to be wrong, and DWP does not routinely make special payments under those circumstances. The noble Baroness may not welcome it, but I am very grateful that carers’ organisations have really welcomed the fact that we have taken the trouble to work out through an independent review precisely what went wrong and are putting it right. I am delighted that we are able to do it, and I look forward to our being able to right those wrongs.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope I am right in thinking that the whole House is in support of what the Minister is trying to achieve, so well done. Can she extend this just a little further and help carers feel that they are recognised and listened to? Some of the points that I receive are of course about the financial arrangements, but more than that, many carers continue to feel aggrieved that their work and their worth are not recognised and valued.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a really important point. One of the good things about the Sayce review is that it involved carers directly and listened to them, and by listening to them was able to get to the bottom of what had gone wrong. My colleague Minister Timms, who is the Minister in charge of this, has carefully gone out to meet carers and is going to do so again. I know that he will want to hear not just what went wrong here but how people’s lives are impacted by the care that they give. How do the Government make their lives easier or harder, and how can we learn from that?
Finally, since the noble Lord prompts me to do the right thing always, I say once again that the whole House will want to join me in thanking carers for the service they give to those they love. Many in this House will have experience of either giving or receiving care, possibly both. It is an act of love and it is the Government’s job to support it and not get in the way, and we pledge to try to do that.
Jobs Market
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, despite Tuesday’s unemployment figures, there is positive information on the labour market. However, the latest figures show why we are right to focus on supporting people into work with our Get Britain Working plan, which includes modernisation of jobcentres, tackling economic inactivity due to ill health and delivering our youth guarantee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, there are now nearly 2 million unemployed people on this Government’s watch and the number is rising month by month since the introduction of the penal national insurance job tax and now the threat of first-day unfair dismissal rights under the Employment Rights Bill. Will the Minister listen to business, listen to the Resolution Foundation, listen to Tony Blair and listen to this House when it debates this issue on Monday? Will she undertake to persuade her colleagues that this Budget must have measures that inspire business to give people the dignity of work? Otherwise, the message will be what I said in my maiden speech 50 years ago: “Labour isn’t working”. It was not working then, and it is not working now.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I was not here to hear the noble Lord’s maiden speech 50 years ago, but it is interesting that his message has not changed in the intervening years. Let me give him a few thoughts. First, he should look at what is happening underneath the employment figures and around the world. Let me point a few things out to him. Over the last year, more than 329,000 people have moved into work. In the first half of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We have the third-highest employment rate in the G7—it is above the G7 average. Over the most recent quarter, the number of people claiming unemployment benefits fell by 35,000. Those people in work are doing well. Let me give the noble Lord one final stat: since July 2024, real wages have risen more than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government. I celebrate that.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the dual impact of artificial intelligence on the UK job market, in both the potential for job displacement in some sectors and the creation of new roles? What is the Government’s strategy to manage this transition and equip the British workforce with the skills to drive the new AI economy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is a really great question that is obsessing most government departments and most employers, as the noble Lord will know. I think the impact depends on the sector and on the individual job, but the evidence is quite clear, which is that, across the piece, it is better for businesses to embrace AI than not to. The biggest risk to our country is in not embracing artificial intelligence—if we do not take the opportunities it offers.
The World Economic Forum has forecast that AI will create 170 million new jobs globally over the next five years and displace 90 million. We will find that there are jobs out there, but they will be different. In our country, we have to make sure that we get those good jobs in the UK. What we are doing as a Government is analysing that very carefully and supporting businesses and individuals to make sure they have the skills they need to move on to the next area. We have reformed skills; we are bringing skills into DWP for many young people; we have a brand-new skills academy; we are looking at developing apprenticeships and we are focusing on supporting education to give young people the skills they need. There will be jobs there in the future; we just want to make sure our people get them.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statistics, but the latest ONS figures show unemployment has risen from 4.8% to 5%—the highest level for four years. On that basis, can the Minister share concern that the UK’s sluggish productivity growth and skills shortages are still holding back economic recovery? What further measures are being considered to invest in adult skills and retraining? We will keep coming back to this. I thank the Minister for what she has said, but I would like a bit more information.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
On the unemployment figures, different things are going on under the surface if one digs down into the figures, which I am sure the noble Lord has done. For example, he may be aware that two things are going on. On the quarter increases and on the unemployment level, a chunk of that is driven by young people aged 16 to 24, including those in full-time education. Crucially, falling inactivity has contributed to increase in unemployment. We are tackling people who are economically inactive, but as people return to the labour market, they move from the figures of economic inactivity into the figures for unemployment. One thing that has happened is that the significant rise in economic inactivity down to ill health has been flattened, and that is really significant.
I would love to talk to the noble Lord at a greater length about skills. As he now knows, I have the great joy that my noble friend Lady Smith, who is now a Minister not only in DfE but in DWP, because she is the Minister for Skills, is joining up the two departments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Yes, I was going to say the less important one, but I will get in trouble any which way I do this.
We are joining up with DfE to invest heavily in skills. We have new qualifications and new apprenticeships coming online and investment in skills strategies. A huge amount is going on—more than I can say at the Dispatch Box—but I would love to talk to the noble Lord more about this.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have given notice that they will stop the employee car ownership scheme, ECOS, in the British car industry. That will reduce production by at least 80,000 units and cost 5,000 jobs. Does the Minister agree that it is time to re-evaluate this proposal?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not often say it, but I know absolutely nothing about that, so I will take it back to my department and somebody will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, 111,000 fewer young people are employed than at the beginning of the year. With the rise in NI and the rise in minimum wage, many employers say that they cannot afford to employ young people. What work are the Government doing to make sure that our young people have a future in employment and not on welfare?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful for that question; I know that it is something that the noble Lord cares very much about. We are doing a lot for young people. This is what is so exciting about what is happening. We have a youth guarantee, but my boss as Secretary of State has also made it clear that if an eligible young person has been on universal credit for 18 months, we will create a guaranteed job for them to support them in getting back into a job and transitioning into work. We need to move to a point where every young person out there is either earning, learning or preparing themselves to do one or the other. I am particularly worried about the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, particularly on health grounds or because for some reason they are outside the labour market altogether. The noble Lord may have heard that my Secretary of State has asked Alan Milburn to look specifically at an inquiry to find out what is going on with those young people. We are already doing huge amounts in this area, but we need to address work specifically on that. I am looking forward to finding out what he has to say.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Has the Secretary of State commissioned an internal report on the effect of the national insurance change on unemployment, and have they passed that information to the Treasury?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government did an impact assessment at the time and acknowledged that there might be an impact on labour supply when they made changes to the national insurance regime. Obviously, what happens in the new Budget I know nothing about and it will come forward. What we have done is work very closely with employers. We know that employers are out there and want to take on people, and they want to support particularly people who are not in the labour market. Our job is to help them in doing that, and we are determined to do so.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I bring to the House my registered interest—I chair the Nuclear Industry Association. We had the recent announcement of the SMR, the small modular reactor, the Rolls-Royce build, going to Wylfa in Wales. Will the Minister join me in welcoming those highly skilled, well-paid and very often trade-unionised jobs being brought to the shores of the UK?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am delighted to welcome that. It was a really exciting announcement, and the Government are committed to investing in new high-quality, highly skilled jobs. We want to be a country that brings inward investment in, trains people up, gets them into good jobs and keeps them there. That is a good example.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we are losing around 5,000 people a day from the labour market on to benefits. What is the department’s latest projection for the number of people expected to flow on to out-of-work and health-related benefits over the next 12 to 24 months? What are the main drivers behind that projection? Will the Government publish the underlying assumptions of the quarterly progress data so that your Lordships can track whether the interventions that the noble Baroness refers to are working?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we have made clear what our ambitions are with Get Britain Working and that we will have metrics and publish regular data on them. One thing I want to take the opportunity to say at the Dispatch Box is that I have seen headlines this week suggesting that large numbers of people are flowing on to universal credit, as though this was a reason they were flowing out of work. I know the noble Baroness knows this and she is far too smart to raise it at the Dispatch Box, but I remind the House that the key reason for that is that the previous Government decided to close the legacy benefits and move anyone on to universal credit. For example, 800,000 people have left old benefits and made a claim to universal credit. I would encourage noble Lords, if they see those kinds of headlines, to think twice.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Baroness Sherlock ExcerptsTuesday 11th November 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 145-I Marshalled List for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (10 Nov 2025)
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B agreed.
Motion C
Baroness Sherlock
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions E and F, with the leave of the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his continued constructive engagement on these issues. I hope that today we will reach a resolution with the amendments in lieu and assurances that I provide.
I start with Motion E and Lords Amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained using an eligibility verification notice, or EVN. As drafted, this amendment carries three key risks: first, it risks DWP not being able to use EVM information properly, even in those cases where it might be a strong indicator of potential fraud; secondly, it risks legislating for a person’s state of mind; and thirdly, it risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Government Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu are therefore presented as a substitute. These amendments address those risks, build on the amendments I tabled on Report and reflect the Government’s stated policy intent throughout; namely, that EVM information considered in isolation cannot constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion or indicate wrongdoing.
These amendments focus on the actions which DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information and clarify that where DWP has received it, staff must also have regard to all other relevant information held before taking further action. This approach would, first, require an authorised officer to consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice under new Section 109BZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as well as the relevant EVM information. As a reminder, an information notice under that new section can be issued only where the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or intends to commit fraud, and the authorised officer considers the notice necessary and proportionate for the purposes of investigating that suspicion. The amendments in lieu make it clear that where EVM information is relevant to those considerations, the authorised officer must also consider non-EVM information that is relevant to the question of whether to issue the notice.
Secondly, it requires that before a DWP staff member can suspend benefit payments, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to do so, as well as the relevant EVM information. Finally, it requires that before a DWP staff member can make a change to an earlier benefit decision, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to change that earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information.
DWP will always hold at least some further information on benefit claims, such as the presence or absence of relevant capital disregards, claimants’ declarations about capital or known vulnerabilities. This amendment provides the necessary assurance that DWP staff will consider this context carefully before taking further action. I think this reflects the intent of the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as well as the Government’s stated policy intent. I am grateful for his engagement on this matter and hope that these government amendments in lieu offer the necessary reassurance.
I turn to Motion C and Lords Amendment 43 on the requirements of the independent reviewer. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, knows that I cannot accept his amendment; I shall go through each part to explain why. Officials in my department have discussed its proposed paragraph (d) with the finance industry, which agrees that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. However, I have put it on record before, and reassure the House again today, that the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate.
I can assure the House that we will continue working closely with businesses as we implement these measures to ensure it is done in the most efficient and effective way. I have also previously committed to publishing a further, updated impact assessment within 12 months of Royal Assent, taking into account the ongoing work with industry through our test-and-learn period. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to the House today.
As for proposed paragraph (e), there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We have been clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and we have worked closely with the finance industry to provide clarity in the draft code of practice to prevent any such problems. The role of the independent EVM reviewer is not to review every process which DWP carries out; rather, it is to review the exercise and effectiveness of that specific data-gathering power and to consider the Government’s compliance with the legislation.
I have stressed often before that DWP has strong support in place for vulnerable people. For example, all DWP front-line operational colleagues are trained to help identify and support our most vulnerable customers. This includes mental health training and the ability to provide reasonable adjustments.
Amendments 84A and 84B reaffirm that further decisions will not be taken without considering all relevant information, in addition to EVM information. This would of course include any available information on vulnerabilities.
Government amendments made on Report also introduced a specific requirement that the Secretary of State be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to issue an EVM, and clarified that the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued is to assist in identifying incorrect payments. As such, the independent reviewer can assess the Government’s actions against these requirements as part of their consideration of compliance with the legislation. We will work closely with the independent reviewer, especially in the test and learn phase, to identify any issues quickly and take steps to prevent or mitigate them.
Turning to subsection (f), Government amendments tabled on Report address this point. They require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material. I hope that this duty, alongside the Government’s commitment to work constructively with the reviewer, is sufficient.
My noble friend Lady Anderson made a commitment that Members will have an opportunity to meet with the PSFA’s independent reviewer. Today, I offer the House a parallel commitment that there will be opportunities for Members of this House to meet with the EVM independent reviewer, once they are appointed, and share their views with them.
I turn to Motion F, and Amendment 97 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which concerns DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force. As I have made clear to the House, the powers of search and seizure, including warrant applications and production orders, are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This also includes the power of reasonable force, as set out in Section 117 of PACE. These powers will be used by expert DWP staff, trained to industry standards, to tackle only serious and organised crime against DWP.
As I outlined on Report, I am not able to accept Lords Amendment 97 as drafted, although our stated policy intent is that DWP-authorised investigators would not use reasonable force against a person. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that we cannot break down Section 117 of PACE to make the distinction between property and persons, and there is no precedent for specifying in PACE where or on what reasonable force may be applied. The Government’s preferred approach is for DWP to take powers of reasonable force from PACE, following precedents from other government departments.
However, I have listened to the concerns expressed in the House and looked for another way to reflect the stated policy intent in the Bill. The Government have therefore introduced, as amendments in lieu, Amendments 97A, 97B and 97C to Clause 76, and Amendments 97D, 97E and 97F to Schedule 4. These reflect our stated policy intent and draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force, exercisable by DWP-authorised investigators, and police officers or others with constable powers. These amendments remove the power of reasonable force that was derived from Section 117 of PACE and instead create a stand-alone provision on reasonable force in this Bill. This provision restricts DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force to force against property only, while retaining the police’s power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property. This delivers our stated policy intent but brings DWP’s power of reasonable force outside of PACE. I believe this reflects the intent behind Lords Amendment 97, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will welcome it.
However, this is a bespoke approach, and it is important that we maintain the same safeguards when DWP-authorised investigators exercise reasonable force. My department is working closely with the Home Office on this. To ensure that DWP-authorised investigators will still operate in the same way as others with powers of reasonable force under PACE, we will maintain compliance with PACE Code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure.
The Home Office has confirmed that, when parliamentary time allows, secondary legislation will be brought forward to ensure that the stand-alone provision in the Bill will be subject to PACE Code B. My department has also worked swiftly to secure assurances that inspection of the use of this stand-alone provision will be provided by HMICFRS and the IOPC. The other relevant powers of entry, search and seizure, beyond reasonable force, will still be drawn down from PACE, and are subject to the safeguards and operational standards I have outlined over the passage of the Bill.
A different approach has been adopted for the provisions in Schedule 4 which apply to Scotland. These broadly replicate PACE search and seizure provisions to achieve parity but make some small, necessary adaptations for Scots law. Therefore, Amendments 97D to 97F make equivalent changes to powers of reasonable force in Scotland.
I hope this reassures noble Lords and puts this question about the use of reasonable force beyond doubt, as DWP-authorised investigators now cannot use reasonable force against people. I hope that the House will support this Motion. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we come to this final group of government amendments on the DWP section of the Bill, I begin by recognising the real progress that has been made on the DWP use of PACE powers and eligibility verification provisions—progress that has been driven by this House’s detailed scrutiny and the persistence of Members from all sides, not least the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Throughout, we on these Benches have sought to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance—strong on fraud prevention but fair, proportionate and mindful of its impact on vulnerable people. We therefore welcome the Government’s concessions in several areas, which have come about as a result of the sustained pressure applied by this House.
Amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism. Our overriding concern has been the impact on vulnerable individuals and those at risk of financial exclusion. The system must not lead to people being debanked, subject to excessive deductions or left unable to access essential services. We are pleased that the Government have now committed to an assurance that Parliament will be able to engage with the independent reviewer after Royal Assent to explore these issues, and that the concerns that we have raised here and in the other place will be formally shared with the reviewer.
I am grateful that the Minister in the other place claimed the may/must change as a government initiative—imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery—but it was in fact first proposed from these Conservative Benches. That is another example of the constructive scrutiny that has improved the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will be keen to correct this on the record.
We welcome the Government’s concession in Amendments 84A and 84B. These make it clear that human decision-makers must have regard to all relevant information and ensure that human judgment remains embedded in the process. This protects against the risks of mechanistic or AI-driven decision-making, not only now but into the future as these technologies evolve and become more widespread. This is a sensible safeguard and a direct result of arguments advanced in your Lordships’ House.
Regarding PACE powers, I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted that DWP investigators should not be able to use reasonable force against individuals. This corrects a serious drafting flaw in the text of the Bill and aligns its provisions with the Government’s stated policy. It makes the law safer, clearer and more coherent. I really thank the Minister for her valiant efforts in this area. However, it is surprising, especially given that it protects the integrity of the Government’s stated policy, that it should have required so much persuasion from your Lordships’ House for the Government to get to this position.
As a result of the changes made to the Bill in this House, the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the DWP will be better equipped to act against frauds while operating within a framework of stronger safeguards. Because of efforts on these Benches and others, the PSFA will be proactive but also more accountable and transparent. As a result of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and other noble Lords, vulnerable people will be better protected and represented in the independent review, and the use of artificial intelligence will be subject to clearer human oversight. Fundamentally, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to property, not people.
Having said all that, there are still gaps in the Bill. The Government have yet to engage seriously with the growing problem of sickfluencers, online figures who use their platforms to encourage and advise people to make fraudulent benefits claims. Unless the Government begin to analyse and address this issue, they risk falling behind and missing the opportunity to tackle a significant driver of future fraud risk. We welcome the progress achieved, but we will continue to raise the issues we have championed during the passage of this Bill and keep a watchful eye on how its provisions are enacted. The Bill now better reflects the need to protect the public purse from fraud and the duty to safeguard the public. It leaves your Lordships’ House in a far better place than when it arrived and demonstrates once again, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, the constructive and vital work of this House.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful that all noble Lords who have contributed have conceded that we have reached a point where we are all now content to move forward with this important Bill.
On the specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we would move forward without any other information. DWP will always hold some other information on benefit claims, but it is crucial that appropriate weight can be given to EVM information if necessary. That is the reason we took the approach we did in the new amendment, because it makes clear that, where EVM information is relevant to a question, DWP must also consider non-EVM information that is also relevant. That other information could take different forms; it could be about the presence or absence for disregard or other information, as I went through. I hope that helps.
“(4) In this paragraph, “authorised officer” includes “authorised investigator”.”
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 84 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu.
“(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—
(a) an authorised officer is considering whether to give an information notice under section 109BZA in relation to a person, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice.
(3) The authorised officer must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice, including information that is not EVM information.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether to suspend payments of a benefit to a person in accordance with regulations under section 21 or 22 of the Social Security Act 1998, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments.
(5) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments, including information that is not EVM information.
(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether a decision taken under section 8, 9 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 in relation to a person (“the earlier decision”) should be revised or superseded, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded.
(7) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded, including information that is not EVM information.”
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 97 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 97A, 97B, 97C, 97D, 97E and 97F in lieu.
People with Disabilities: Employment
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as chairman of Team Domenica.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the valuable role that volunteering plays in helping people prepare for work, we want disabled people and people with health conditions to be able to secure sustained employment. That is why we are funding local authorities to open our supported employment programme, Connect to Work, throughout England and Wales. Crucially, as part of this programme, specialist employment advisers work with both participants and employers, ensuring that participants are supported and workplaces are inclusive.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, but the fact remains that only 5% of people with learning disabilities are in paid employment. Will the Minister agree to giving businesses an exemption or a remission from the employers’ national insurance contribution for this cohort, whose lives would be transformed by being included in the workplace and their communities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to find more opportunities for people with learning disabilities, severe autism and other conditions to get the benefits of work, of which money is but one. I pay tribute to the work she has done in creating Team Domenica and the work it has done in supporting learning-disabled people into work. I am sure the whole House would share in that.
Having said all that, successive Governments have taken a view that the best way to support disabled people into work is not necessarily by changing the rules around national insurance or the minimum wage. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the level of employment for disabled people is only around 50% and for those with autism around 30%, and, as she says, it is vanishingly small for those with learning disabilities. We believe passionately that disabled people are vital to the UK’s workforce. The way we have approached this is with the priority of providing opportunities and support for disabled people to thrive in work. That is why we commissioned the independent Keep Britain Working review, which will be published shortly, to understand how we can create and maintain the kind of workplaces that want to support disabled people and enable them to thrive. It is why we are reforming employment, health and skills support, to tackle rising economic inactivity and get people into good jobs. We want the same thing; we are doing it in different ways, but we are determined to make things better.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for her important Question. I declare my interest as having a 46 year-old son with a learning disability and autism. I am currently mentoring a highly educated 38 year-old young man, who has four degrees, including a master’s and a PhD. He still cannot find a job. Is the Minister satisfied that the local authority allocation for Connect to Work will be ring-fenced for that precise purpose? Will she consider apprenticeship schemes specially designated for people with autism?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for sharing her circumstance with us. I am really optimistic about Connect to Work. For noble Lords who do not know, Connect to Work is a specialist voluntary support and employment programme. It is for anyone who is disabled or who has a health condition or other barrier to work, such as homelessness. Local authorities, supported by DWP, are developing programmes. The reason it works—there is international evidence that shows what works in this space—is that it incorporates helping someone to work out what they want, engaging with employers and job-finding. A specialist adviser works with an individual and with local employers, and connects an individual to an employer, gets them into conversations, and then gets them into work and carries on supporting them in work. Crucially, they help the employers know how best to support people. Recently, I was talking to the head of this programme at one of the south coast councils. She said that lots of employers want to do the right thing but often they do not know how to —they may lack knowledge or be worried about how to have the necessary conversations. We have to tackle this on both fronts, but I am positive about it.
Lord Laming (CB)
Does the Minister recall the Public Services Committee’s report on the transition of young people with a disability from education into adult services? The evidence showed that there was a remarkable divergence. In some parts of the country, local authorities demonstrated quite inspiring work in getting young people with disabilities into work; in other parts of the country, the parents described it as like facing a cliff face. Does the Minister agree that we should set targets for every local authority, to make sure that, year on year, the number of young people with a disability going into employment is increasing? The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, can demonstrate that very well.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a very important point. There has been an issue for some time—I am not telling him anything new; he knows it better than I do—around the transition between the support for young people when they are in school and the support when they get out of school. The bit that we can do something about is around funding to local authorities, which we are providing. A couple of weeks ago, we announced further funding of £167 million to roll out Connect to Work to nine further areas in England, and we expect all areas to be open by early next year. We are working with them to look at what they are providing, how they provide it, and how they tailor it to their local populations and job markets. If we can make a difference and get young people into work—I thought the example of Tom working in Waitrose, until things went wrong, was so interesting—then what is gained from them working is certainly money, but also self-respect, teamwork, a peer group and the chance to make a difference. If we can do that, it can be transformative.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister add to her comments by providing an update on the publication of the Charlie Mayfield report into employment for people with long-term sickness and disabilities? We have been waiting for that report for some months.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We have indeed. Despite being a Minister, I have not yet completely calibrated the scale that runs from, at one end, “in due course”, to, at the other end, “very soon”, but it is very much not at the “in due course” end. Watch this space; it will be out very soon.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Monckton. In November 2017, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead set the UK Government a target to get 1 million more disabled people into work by 2027. In 2022, the Conservative Government hit that target five years early, giving 1 million more disabled people the opportunity of fulfilling employment. The noble Baroness spoke about giving opportunity and offering support, which is fair enough, but perhaps she could go further and say what practical steps Ministers are taking to support small and medium-sized businesses, especially those rooted in local communities, such as cafés and pubs, to accommodate these additional needs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that really good question. We have a service called “support with employee health and disability”. We are not great at names in DWP, but it does what it says on the tin. That was developed directly with input from smaller businesses and disability organisations. The idea is that it gives employers step-by-step guidance on how they can support employees in common workplace scenarios involving health and disability. For example, employers using the resource may be asked, “Have you got somebody you are working with now?”, and if they say yes then it will ask them what the challenge is. It can support them in understanding what the law says and how to have difficult conversations.
Most people who either are working or want to work, and who have a health condition or a disability, are happy to have conversations to help the employer know how to go about moving them into a job. One of the reasons that the Connect to Work programme I mentioned works so well is that the specialist advisers will work with the employer to help answer all those questions; they will also work with the person who is trying to move into work and can help bring the two together. A person I was talking to recently, who is a lead in one of these programmes, said that small businesses especially just do not have the resources—they have not got a huge HR department and so might not know how to do it—but they are really up for hiring people in the local community, and just want to be supported in doing so. I am really looking forward to seeing how that works out.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, last year, the TUC estimated that there is an average disability pay gap of £4,300 a year. Add this to the gender and ethnicity pay gaps, and then imagine the plight of disabled women from ethnic minorities. Can the Minister explain how many employers a year are investigated for persistently underpaying disabled persons and ethnic-minority females with disabilities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if anyone is not paying the legal minimum then they are breaking the law, whatever the circumstances, and should absolutely be taken to task for that. However, my noble friend is making a broader point, which is that there are clear gaps in employment: for female employment, for the disability employment gap and in pay rates for a number of ethnic minorities, although the pattern is more varied there. One challenge in the whole strategy of trying to move to a more inclusive labour market is that it is not about trying to do something for its own sake but about recognising that if we do not use the talents of all our people, businesses are not getting the best people that they want to do the jobs, and we will not get the kind of growth we need or development in companies. One of the reasons we have had such a focus on working with combined mayoral authorities and local authorities is to try to make sure that they have local Get Britain Working plans which reflect their local populations, so that, as they develop them, everybody in the local area has a good chance to get into work. That is our approach.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Baroness Sherlock ExcerptsThursday 23rd October 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-II Second marshalled list for Report - (17 Oct 2025)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege for my noble friend Lady Anderson and me to take this important Bill through the House. This Government are committed to safeguarding public money and tackling fraud and waste. Public sector fraud is not a victimless crime; it damages our public services and, ultimately, it is taxpayers who suffer when they pick up the bill. Tens of billions of pounds are being lost to public sector fraud—money desperately needed by our public services. This Bill delivers on that commitment to safeguard public money and reduce fraud and overpayments resulting from errors across the public sector. It will enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to support public sector bodies in investigating and dealing with fraud, and it will help the DWP better identify, prevent and deter fraud and error in the social security system. In doing so, this Bill will protect the public purse and deliver £1.5 billion of benefits over the next five years.
I thank all noble Lords who have given so generously of their time and wisdom in scrutinising this important legislation. Although we have not always agreed with them, my noble friend Lady Anderson and I have been grateful for the very many thoughtful and considered contributions that have prompted us at various points to improve the Bill or to clarify its provisions. This is what the House of Lords is for, and I am grateful for it.
Before I conclude, I offer some words of thanks, first, to the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, have given robust but constructive challenge throughout the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for their time, both inside the Chamber and beyond. Similarly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have been passionate advocates on issues such as whistleblowing and carers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their careful engagement, both in and beyond the Chamber. I am grateful for the constructive challenge from around House, including from my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Fox, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
Thanks must go to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who has maintained a keen interest in both parts of the Bill throughout its passage. The noble Lord has advocated for a number of different issues. We thank him for his constructive engagement and hope he welcomes the progress that has been made.
My noble friend Lady Anderson and I thank our Whips, especially our noble friend Lord Katz for his support throughout the Bill, and put on record our appreciation of all the officials and public servants who provided such dedicated support throughout this legislative process. I thank Georgia, Oliver, Alana and Ewan from our brilliant private offices, Matt, Louise and Tanya from the fabulous Bill team, and all the policy colleagues who stood behind them. Noble Lords who have met them will have been as impressed as I am with their professionalism and knowledge.
Finally, unusually, I thank my noble friend Lady Anderson’s husband for sharing her with us so extensively in the run-up to not just her wedding but her honeymoon. It is a sign of her dedication that she has given so much time to this Bill. She is the only person I know who can, while taking the content incredibly seriously, bring quite so many laughs to the subject of public sector fraud. I am grateful to so many noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I will make a short reflection on our discussions on Report and in Committee. I speak for my noble friend Lady Finn in so doing. Despite the technical title, this is an important Bill, as the noble Baroness said. It addresses one of the most serious problems that public authorities face. Based on the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s methodology, fraud and error cost the taxpayer £55 billion to £81 billion in 2023-24. The Bill has sought to address this problem, at least in part, through the provision of extensive powers to officials in the DWP and the Cabinet Office. It is largely these that we have discussed over the past few months.
I am proud of the work that this House has done in scrutinising the Bill, identifying issues and problems, and working in the genuine spirit of collaboration to make it better, fairer and more effective. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lady Sherlock, for the way they have engaged with Members from across the House. They have listened to concerns, shown genuine willingness to make improvements and demonstrated what responsible government should look like. I firmly believe that the Bill before us is stronger and more balanced than the one first introduced to this House. There is more to be done and areas for further improvement, but we have reflected this in our amendments. The changes that have been made are indeed welcome, and we look forward to ping-pong when it comes. I am also grateful to the noble Baronesses for following up on commitments swiftly, not least for providing the now famous flow charts, which have been genuinely useful to us and, I hope, their departments.
I thank other noble Lords for their engagement with this Bill and their support of our amendments both in Committee and on Report. We have sought to address what we see to be serious shortcomings in the Bill on questions of oversight, accountability, proportionality and fairness. I am thankful to noble Lords who supported us in the Divisions that we called. The amendments we have passed in this place advocate for greater oversight, clearer lines of accountability and a PSFA that can actively pursue fraud. I believe that these are important changes that make the Bill more effective and fairer.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for their support of our amendments, and I certainly do not forget the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I thank them for their support on some of our proposals. I look forward with interest to seeing how the arrangement with the PSFA, the DWP and the banks evolves and becomes effective. We accept that it is test and learn. It is vital that the legislation to seal the agreement becomes effective in combating fraud.
Finally, I thank the officials who have worked so hard from the government side to enable this process to happen. I know from my time as a Minister that we rely on our officials for a great deal; indeed, it is often to them who we turn for advice and support. I also know that their work is often not credited because they are not visible in the way that we are during debates. I therefore thank officials from the DWP, the Cabinet Office, the PSFA and the Ministers’ private offices who have worked hard to support them and, indirectly, all of us in the discussions we have had on the Bill. Noble Lords from across the House should recognise them and their work. I pay particular tribute to and thank my assistant, Oliver Bramley, for his sterling work during this period.
I urge the Government to meet this House on the amendments that it has added to the Bill, given the extensive discussions and strong cross-party support that they command from across the House. The Bill that we return to the Commons is a better one and I urge the Government to use this opportunity to make these changes permanent.
Finally, we all leave the Bill with certain expressions ringing in our ears, such as “test and learn”, which I alluded to earlier, but particularly the tongue-twister “eligibility verification measure”. I think I can just still say that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am probably the last person to speak and mull over all that has happened. I thank sincerely the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, and their team. They have been very helpful to us in answering our questions, trying to agree with us and offering a meeting to discuss the part of this Bill on carers. We appreciate and look forward to that departmental meeting, together with, I hope, one of our MPs, so that we can have a reasonable view towards ping-pong and what goes forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as everyone has, for many things that we worked closely on and supported. I also thank particularly the Conservative Front Bench, who have not been confrontational but have tried to work to get a better Bill. The Bill has been quite exemplary in the way that people have worked towards improving it in many ways. I obviously also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer, who has worked with me on the Bill, and Adam Bull, our legislative and political adviser, who has been giving me support throughout.
We have among us—the Cross Benches, the Government, the Conservative Benches, this Bench and the Bishops’ Bench—all improved the Bill. I hope that the improvements we have made will last through ping-pong and that we end up with a better Bill—not a confrontational Bill but one that will help public funds, which is obviously its aim, while protecting the vulnerable in society who are not really going to be the paymasters of dealing with errors in the past. Congratulations to all, including the staff in the background of the Government who have made this such an interesting exercise, even though I am surprised that we have got to Third Reading so quickly after Report, and in almost indecent haste. If all legislation could be so quick, it would be a great advantage to this House and the other House. I hope that the Bill passes successfully.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords—in fact, that was so nice that I would like it to carry on, but the Chief Whip will kick me from behind if it goes on any longer. However, I will say a couple of things. In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, we have already begun to think about how we can look at making things better in the way that I described. I will find the most appropriate way to communicate that, but I assure him that I stand by the assurances that I gave on Report—and I say likewise to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I will reflect on what has happened. Having given so much ground, I do not want to spoil the unanimity, but I will not be able to give everything. I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that.
Finally, as we send the Bill down the Corridor, it is now for the elected House to consider and respond to the changes proposed by this House. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we would welcome a swift consideration to make sure that we can move quickly and get on with the important job of addressing fraud and overpayments across the public sector.
Jobcentres: Staffing Levels
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the staffing levels within Job Centres.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, DWP monitors demand for jobcentre support on an ongoing basis and has well-established workforce planning systems to make sure that we have the right people in the right place at the right time. These systems help us to prioritise jobcentre activities where needed, protecting our most effective interventions and making sure that we maintain a constant focus on getting people into work, while remaining within funding limits and providing value for money.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I thank the Minister for her response. A recent BBC article suggested that capacity has been created in jobcentres only by reducing the number and length of appointments. One work coach they spoke to said that having only 10 minutes with clients means
“you’re just being a benefits policeman”,
and some work coaches feel that they are not able to provide the necessary support, in particular to help disabled people into work. Are the Government confident of being able to improve the employment rate for people with disabilities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, our jobcentres provide a professional, targeted service. DWP recently conducted a thorough review of jobcentre activity, to look at ways in which we can respond to demand without having a negative impact on outcomes for claimants, or indeed on benefit expenditure or fraud and error. After the review, the department introduced a series of operational changes, the aim of which was to maintain consistency in jobcentres across the country.
However, consistency is not the same as uniformity. It cannot be sensible to have the same regime for a 20 year-old who has not worked ever since leaving school, a 40 year-old who is recovering from a serious illness, and a 60 year-old who is working in a job but not earning quite enough to escape from the demands of the jobcentre. So we are exploring ways to adapt the length, frequency and channels for appointments so they are better tailored to the needs of the individual. That way, we will be able to protect the interventions that are most effective but also try to make sure that we direct the resources where they are most needed. We now have additional work coaches working specifically on our programmes to support people with health conditions and disabilities, and we have committed to spending £1 billion by the end of the decade, investing in those very customers.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, during my time as an MP, I made a point of trying to visit local jobcentres every year on a very regular basis. One of my consistent observations was that, all too often, local offices were never properly involved in designing services to address local priorities. So, is it not time we got away from this one-size-fits-all, Whitehall-led mentality?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord has been reading our Get Britain Working plan—that is the only explanation for that comment. That is exactly what we want to do, and he is so right on this. We have been saying from the beginning that one size does not fit all, and that in employment interventions we are looking to work closely with local leaders, so we are running a series of trailblazers around the country, working with local mayoral authorities and local government.
Every labour market is different. The noble Lord is quite right that we do not have a single labour market in Britain; we have a series of different labour markets, with different challenges, populations and employment patterns, and our job is to make sure that we respond to those needs. For example, we have eight youth trailblazers running around the country, from Teesside to the south-west, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the East and West Midlands and London, to look at what works. We will learn from that and will then help people to make the right decisions for their people.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, that sounds a very optimistic viewpoint from the Minister. However, the reports are that staff stress levels are at historic heights, and many are leaving for better pay and less stress. Aligned to that, staff shortages also mean less support for vulnerable clients. Can the Minister give a more optimistic view than is being reported?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I may be an optimist but I am also very positive. I believe in our staff, and I understand that there are times when this can be a really stressful job: there is no question about that. But we have been looking really carefully to make sure that we can predict demand levels and manage our staffing levels accordingly.
One of the challenges is that we are asking people to do a different job from what they did in the past. I had a really interesting conversation recently with one of our senior people who has worked on the front line about who she recruits to be a work coach, because you have to find people who have the appropriate levels of empathy and can motivate people, but who are also able to have a tough conversation when you need that. One of the things I asked was, “Where do people recruit from?” She said that they come from really different backgrounds. They are teachers, people from retail, people from call centres, the emergency services and from some legal offices. We are looking for skill sets and characteristics that can enable people to do a really tough job. We are also investing in our people, creating a work coach academy to upskill them and give them the tools they need to do the job, and we are investing in AI so that they have the information they need to help the customers. We can do this, and we are going to.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister refers to people with medical conditions that may be preventing them getting back into work, will she look at whether there are in fact enough health advisers in jobcentres who could help by referring them quickly? I know that there are some pilots on mental health advisers, but can she look at whether this could perhaps be extended through the trailblazers?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, that is really interesting. I know that we do have advisers working out of GP centres, for example in Darwen, in Lancashire, and in Braehead, where we are placing people so that, when GPs encounter people with certain kinds of difficulties, we can provide employment support right then, so that people do not then get out of the labour market and end up being out for some time. We also have projects working closely with the NHS for people who are in work but at risk of falling out of work. If we can support them to stay in their jobs, it is much easier and better for the employer than having them falling out. I do not know whether we have GPs or healthcare workers working in our jobcentres, but what an interesting idea—I will go off and ask that very question.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the charity that runs the libraries and museums in Perth and Kinross. In Perth and Kinross, there is a feeling that libraries have a part to play here, and that is because sometimes a certain amount of stigma is attached to going into a jobcentre for people who are thinking of needing careers advice or job progress. There is no stigma associated with going to a library, and the libraries in Perth and Kinross have been able to provide all sorts of support. Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Earl—that is a really interesting idea. There are people who are happy to go into a jobcentre, and there are people for whom that would be really difficult. We have a number of jobcentres around the country, but we also have a number of different services operating out of different places, including libraries, but also youth hubs. We are also testing vans: we have mobile vans going out into communities where people will not come out to us. For example, in Burnley jobcentre there are family community work coaches based at a community grocer, where they can reach out to people. We also have people working out of city councils and all kinds of different areas, but there are specifically groups working in libraries. I will go and find out whether there is any more of that we can do, but I have been assured that they can work really well. Also, I am concerned about the future of libraries, and if that is a way to make sure that there are lots of reasons to go to a place, it can be a win-win.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, further to the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate, more than half of jobcentres are reportedly reducing support for people claiming universal credit due to a shortage of work coaches, not so much to do with shortened appointment times—although I take the right reverend Prelate’s point. Recent data obtained through a freedom of information request shows that just 16,640 work coaches were employed by the DWP in August, the lowest number since March last year. But, given this, and the department’s plans to place job advisers in GP surgeries and mental health services, how do the Government intend to ensure that there are enough work coaches to deliver effective employment support across all settings?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, that is the question. We have an increasingly sophisticated model for mapping demand and the number that the noble Viscount gave pretty much matches the demand we are predicting. But, if demand rises significantly, we will have to prioritise. As I said at the beginning, at the moment, standard processes are that, when somebody first comes into a jobcentre, we will want to see them weekly for the first 13 weeks, but there is no point in treating everybody the same. It is not necessarily a shortage of work coaches that is driving this; we have some turnover but, actually, we are looking at faster ways to recruit them and we are happy that we have the right numbers at the moment. The challenge is to make sure that the support is in the right place, for the right people. If all the work coaches spent all their time checking and ticking everybody’s boxes, they would not be out there doing the things that only they can do, which is to get people into jobs. That is what we want them to do.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Baroness Sherlock ExcerptsTuesday 21st October 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-II Second marshalled list for Report - (17 Oct 2025)
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See my explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 68, page 36, line 29.
Baroness Sherlock
“Part A1Powers to establish the PSFA and transfer functionsMain powers
A1 (1) The Minister may by regulations—(a) provide that a body corporate called the Public Sector Fraud Authority (and referred to in this Schedule as “the PSFA”) is established;(b) provide for the transfer to the PSFA of all or any of the functions to which this paragraph applies.(2) The Minister may by regulations provide for the transfer to a public authority other than the PSFA of all or any of the functions to which this paragraph applies.(3) This paragraph applies to the functions initially conferred on the Minister by Chapters 1 to 5 of Part 1 of this Act (including functions conferred by an amendment of another enactment), except any function of making regulations or issuing a code of practice.(4) A function transferred under sub-paragraph (2) may subsequently be transferred to the PSFA under sub-paragraph (1)(b).(5) But a function transferred to the PSFA under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may not subsequently be transferred to another public authority under sub-paragraph (2).Authorised officers
B1 (1) The reference in paragraph A1(3) to functions initially conferred on the Minister includes functions initially conferred on authorised officers.(2) In relation to a function initially conferred on an authorised officer, references in this Part of this Schedule to the transfer of the function to another body are to be read as references to the transfer of the function to an authorised officer of that body.(3) Where—(a) a function initially conferred on an authorised officer is transferred by regulations under paragraph A1, and(b) as a result of any provision of Chapters 1 to 5 of Part 1 of this Act, that function could be exercised only by an authorised officer of a particular rank, grade or description,the regulations must provide for the function to be exercised by an authorised officer of the transferee of a corresponding grade, rank or description.Associated modifications
C1 (1) Where functions are transferred to the PSFA or another public authority under paragraph A1, the Minister may by regulations—(a) make provision about the application, with any necessary modifications, of Part 1 of this Act in relation to the PSFA or other authority;(b) provide for the Minister to give the PSFA or other authority (or its authorised officers) general or specific directions about the exercise of the transferred functions.(2) Where functions are transferred to or from a public authority, other than the Minister or the PSFA, under paragraph A1, the Minister may by regulations— (a) make any modifications that the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the transfer to the constitutional arrangements, funding arrangements or the functions of the authority;(b) make provision in relation to the authority corresponding to that enabled by paragraph 15 (transfer schemes) in relation to—(i) the PSFA, where functions are being transferred to the authority, or(ii) a “relevant person”, where functions are being transferred from the authority.(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a), “constitutional arrangements” includes the matters referred to in section 3(2) of the Public Bodies Act 2011.(4) Regulations under paragraph A1 or this paragraph may amend—(a) Part 1 of this Act, except this Schedule, and(b) any provision amended by Part 1 of this Act.Procedure
D1 Regulations under this Part of this Schedule are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 70, page 37, line 28.
Baroness Sherlock
“Information notices(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After section 109B insert—“109BZA Power to require information about suspected fraud etc(1) An authorised officer may give a person (“P”) a written notice (an “information notice”) requiring P to give an authorised officer specified information where the officer— (a) has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence, and(b) considers that it is necessary and proportionate to require the specified information for a purpose mentioned in section 109A(2)(c) or (d) (investigating compliance with the relevant social security legislation etc).(2) Information may be specified in an information notice only if it relates to a person who is identified (by name or description) in the information notice as—(a) the person suspected as mentioned in subsection (1)(a), or(b) a member of that person’s family (within the meaning of Part 7 of the Contributions and Benefits Act).(3) An authorised officer may require P to give specified information only if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that P has or is able to access the information.(4) An information notice must set out—(a) the identity (by name or description) of the person to whom the information requested relates;(b) how, where and the period within which the information must be given;(c) information about the consequences of not complying with the notice.(5) The power under this section to require P to give information includes power to—(a) take copies of or extracts from information;(b) require P to provide information in a specified form;(c) if any specified information is not given to an authorised officer, require P to state, to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, both where that information is and why it has not been given to an authorised officer.(6) Subsection (2E) of section 109B (communications data) applies to an information notice under this section as it applies to a notice under that section.(7) In this section—“information” means information in the form of a document or in any other form;“specified” means—(a) specified, or described, in the information notice, or(b) falling within a category that is specified or described in the information notice.(8) Nothing in this section limits the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Schedule 3B.”(3) In section 109A (authorisations for investigators)—(a) in subsection (1), for “109B and 109C below” substitute “109B to 109C”;(b) in subsection (2)(d), at the end insert “or other DWP offences”;(c) in subsection (8), for “109B and 109C below” substitute “109B to 109C”.(4) In section 109B (power to require information)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “about entitlement etc”;(b) in subsection (1)(a) omit “or (2A)”;(c) in subsection (1)(b), for “any one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 109A(2) above” substitute “a purpose mentioned in section 109A(2)(a) or (b)”;(d) omit the following provisions—(i) subsection (2A);(ii) subsection (2B);(iii) subsection (2C); (iv) subsection (2D);(v) subsection (5);(vi) subsection (6);(vii) subsection (7A);(e) in subsection (7) omit the definitions of—(i) “bank”;(ii) “credit”;(iii) “insurer”;(iv) “residential premises”.(5) In section 109BA (power of the Secretary of State to require electronic access to information)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a) omit “falling within section 109B(2A)”;(ii) in paragraph (b), for “109A(2)” substitute “109A(2)(c) or (d)”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), for “109B above” substitute “109BZA”;(c) in subsection (4), for “109B” substitute “109BZA”.(6) In section 109C (powers of entry), in subsection (6), for “Subsections (2E) and (5) of section 109B apply for the purposes of this section as they apply” substitute “Subsection (2E) of section 109B applies for the purposes of this section as it applies”.(7) In section 190 (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (1) omit paragraph (aza).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 74, my amendment replacing clause 101 and my amendment to Schedule 3, page 91, line 3, reverses changes made in the House of Commons, in response to confirmation from the Scottish Ministers that they would like the changes to the Secretary of State’s functions in respect of information notices to apply to them as well.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 41, I will speak also to government Amendments 42, 43, 64, 80, 90 and 111.
Under current devolution arrangements, DWP administers certain devolved benefits on behalf of the Scottish Government through agency agreements. These amendments will ensure that the expanded information gathering powers introduced in this Bill will be available to Scottish Ministers, should they require them in the future. This follows confirmation from the Scottish Government that they would like the updates to these powers to apply to them too.
These amendments will ensure necessary changes are made to the DWP debt recovery powers in the Bill. As drafted in Clause 91, the UK Government are seeking powers to apply new recovery methods to debts of certain devolved benefits delivered under agency agreements. However, the Scottish Government have confirmed that they do not wish these new recovery methods to be applied to devolved benefits administered by DWP through agency arrangements.
Taking the amendments in turn, government Amendment 41 simplifies Clause 73, reflecting how it was originally introduced, with new Section 109BZA now containing the expanded power to issue information notices to any information holder as part of a DWP criminal fraud investigation and ensuring that Scottish Ministers will have access to these equivalent expanded powers in the event that Scottish Ministers deliver any benefits covered by the 1992 Act.
Government Amendments 42 and 43, made to Clause 74, update the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, aligning it with the new powers and ensuring that the requirement to issue a code of practice and the ability to make payments for information also apply properly to Scottish Ministers.
Government Amendment 90 to Clause 91 reflects the position of the Scottish Government on the DWP debt recovery powers. It ensures that the Scottish Government retain control over how debts relating to their devolved benefits are recovered. Once these agency agreements come to an end, it will be for the Scottish Government to determine their own approach to debt recovery, including establishing new powers if necessary.
Finally, government Amendment 111 to Clause 101 confirms that Clauses 73 and 74 are treated as pre-commencement enactments for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998, enabling Scottish Ministers to use these updated powers for fraud investigations in relation to devolved benefits. It confirms that the provisions in Clauses 96 and 97 relating to cost recovery and data protection apply to Scottish Ministers’ existing debt recovery powers. Amendments 80 and 64 update the clause references in Clause 85 and Schedule 3 as a consequence of these changes.
Having outlined the case for these amendments, I hope noble Lords will accept them so that we can fulfil our agreements with the Scottish Government. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the agreement reached with the devolved Administrations—may this be a lesson to people around the world on how to deal with them, at least in this case.
The amendments in this group relate to how the powers in the Bill refer to Scotland specifically. Amendment 41, together with related amendments to Clause 74, and the replacement of Clause 101 and others, reverses—I stress that—the changes made in the House of Commons. I gather that this follows confirmation from Scottish Ministers that they wish the changes to the Secretary of State’s functions regarding information notices to apply to them as well. This seems to me a positive movement of Administrations working together—long may it continue.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as it is my first appearance at the opposition Dispatch Box on Report, I echo remarks made by my noble friend Lady Finn on the first day of Report, because I also appreciate the constructive approach that the Government have taken following Committee.
It is perhaps appropriate that, as a Scot, my first brief contribution relates to matters north of the border. It is our understanding that this amendment has been brought forward by the Government in order to apply to Scotland those provisions of the Bill which we have already debated in earlier clauses, in particular those concerning the new powers to issue information notices under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and to clarify that the new methods of recovery introduced under the Bill will not apply to devolved benefits.
In that sense, these amendments are essentially technical in nature, as the Minister said, ensuring consistency across the United Kingdom and confirming that the devolved benefits system in Scotland remains outside the scope of the new recovery powers. We appreciate and support the clarification. However, while the amendments themselves are straightforward, they raise some wider questions about the relationship between the UK and the devolved Administrations in this area.
It is somewhat surprising that these changes have had to come forward as government amendments at this relatively late stage of the Bill, when one might have expected such matters to have been settled at the drafting stage through earlier consultation and agreement with Scottish Ministers. The Government have placed great store over the past year in stating that they seek to improve communications and trust between the UK Government and the devolved nations, so can the Minister give us an update on how they view progress on these changes and what has changed in the past year?
While we do not oppose these amendments—indeed, we welcome the fact that the necessary legislative consent has now been secured—they prompt reflection on the importance of ensuring that such engagement happens promptly and systematically in future. The relationship between the UK and the devolved Governments works best when issues of competence and application are identified and agreed well in advance, rather than being corrected through amendments on Report.
That said, I would be grateful if the Minister could take this opportunity to update the House on the Government’s current assessment of the risk of fraud in relation to devolved benefits and on what engagement has taken place with the devolved Administrations to address that risk. Can she tell us what steps she is aware of in those authorities to tackle fraud within their systems and how information sharing and co-ordination between the UK Government and the devolved Governments is being managed to ensure that fraud risks are tackled effectively across all jurisdictions?
We are content to support these amendments that bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK where appropriate while respecting the devolution settlement and maintaining clarity over responsibilities in the fight against fraud.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his kind words. I, too, have enjoyed the engagement we have had across the House. It shows how the Lords can make a constructive contribution to the scrutiny of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is quite right that we have a developed and developing devolution situation in the UK, and are showing that it is possible for different jurisdictions to make different judgments and to find ways of coexisting peacefully. We are very glad to be able to do that, and I thank him for flagging that up.
On the timing, I am advised that it is routine for these matters to be resolved at this point in the process. I reassure the House that our officials have engaged with their Scottish counterparts throughout the policy development stage and the passage of the Bill. It was during Lords Committee that we received formal confirmation from the Scottish Government that they wished the updates to the information gathering powers in the Bill to apply to them too, hence we have brought forward appropriate amendments.
In response to the questions from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, fundamentally—this stems from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—tackling fraud and error in devolved benefits must be the responsibility of the relevant devolved Government. That is the nature of devolution. However, we have engaged extensively with the devolved Governments throughout the passage of the Bill, and these amendments reflect that engagement. I reassure him that we routinely work closely with the Scottish Government to share information and good practice to support each other’s efforts to tackle fraud and error. That includes data-sharing agreements so that we can share information where necessary, which I suspect is the kind of assurance that he was hoping for.
I am grateful for those questions, and I hope that with those assurances noble Lords can accept these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock
“(2) In section 3 (code of practice about use of information powers), in subsection (1)—(a) in the words before paragraph (a), after the second “of” insert “the powers that are exercisable by an authorised officer under section 109BZA of the Administration Act.”, and(b) omit paragraphs (a) and (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment replacing clause 73.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 3, page 77, line 12.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, since we are moving on to discuss the eligibility verification measure, about which we had extensive discussions in Committee, I want to say a few words about the need for it and the intent behind it. This enables the Secretary of State to issue a bank or other financial institution with an eligibility verification notice—EVN—that will help the DWP identify incorrect payments in the social security system.
This measure has been misunderstood and occasionally misrepresented throughout the Bill’s passage. It is simply a measure that enables the DWP to ask for limited data from financial institutions that will help the department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits. It requires financial institutions to look within their own data and provide limited, relevant information on the accounts which match the specific eligibility indicators provided by the DWP. This limited information will help the DWP to identify where claimants do not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit that they are receiving.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, each touching on different principles relating to the operation of and limits to the eligibility verification measure. I will address them all briefly. I appreciate the Minister’s full reminder of the intent of this and of some of the operational details behind the EVM, which was very helpful.
I am afraid that we cannot support Amendments 45A, 65 and 74A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as she may expect. As the noble Baroness herself iterated, these amendments would in practice remove one of the Bill’s core operational mechanisms: the framework that enables the detection and investigation of fraud and error in the welfare system. Taking out Clauses 75 and 76 and Schedule 3 would not simply adjust how the powers are used; it would dismantle the machinery that allows the system to function. We on these Benches support the principles behind the Bill and, broadly speaking, how it seeks to counter fraud and deter wrongdoing. As the Minister reminded us, it was a Conservative Government, up until the general election last year, who initiated the approach for the DWP to ask banks and financial institutions for their help in tackling welfare fraud. I also acknowledge that some improvements have been made in the past year.
Removing these clauses would, in effect, as the noble Baroness has admitted, be a wrecking amendment, denying the Department for Work and Pensions the tools it needs to identify and evidence cases of fraud. The real debate, which this House has been having constructively throughout Committee and again on Report, is about how those powers are exercised—proportionately, cost-effectively and with due regard to rights, safeguards and well-being. That is the discussion we should be having, not one that seeks to strike out the core of the Bill.
We broadly welcome the government amendments, which make sensible, constructive improvements to the operation of EVNs. The first, set out in Amendment 48, is the insertion of the “necessary and proportionate” test, which is a welcome safeguard that raises the standard for how these powers are applied. The second clarification, that EVNs may be used only for assisting in identifying incorrect payments, provides welcome precision and helps prevent any risk of mission creep.
Talking of precision, I thank the Minister and her team for producing a series of flow charts. As she knows, I was pressing for these in Committee because there is considerable complexity, including work in progress—I am not quite sure whether we now call it “test and learn” instead of proof of concept—for all those involved in understanding the processes and operations between the banks and the DWP, with the checks, balances and timeframes set out. I hope the Minister acknowledges that this is a help for the department and that it will be continuously updated and improved as the system evolves.
We believe, however, that there remains scope for further clarification, which is why I was glad to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. This additional clarification through the language of his amendment is important. It would make it explicit that the exercise of this power is anchored to the purposes of the Bill rather than to any broader or more flexible administrative interpretation that might develop over time. In practical terms, it would ensure that the Secretary of State’s use of these powers cannot be varied or expanded except by returning to Parliament to amend the primary legislation; for example, were the Government at some future point to seek to extend these powers to cover other forms of welfare support.
We believe that this is an important safeguard. It ties the scope of the eligibility verification regime firmly to the text of the Bill, providing Parliament and the public with confidence that its use will remain confined to the limited, proportionate purposes that we have debated. For that reason, we consider this a sensible and necessary amendment and we are glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in bringing it forward.
We are sorry to say that we cannot support Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, although we entirely appreciate her engagement with us on this point and the spirit in which it was brought forward. The aim of improving transparency is understandable but requiring banks to inform account holders that they have been flagged following an eligibility verification notice risks undermining the integrity of ongoing investigations.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech, and despite her explanation and the safeguard that she outlined, we remain worried that notifying a potentially liable person too early could allow them to conceal or move funds, frustrating the process. While the intention is fair, it could cause or create a serious loophole. Therefore, I am afraid we cannot support it.
However, one of the points on which I agree with the Government is that some of those seeking to defraud the state—after all, it is taxpayers’ money we are talking about—will stop at nothing to get their way to make money for themselves. There is a line to be drawn to ensure that transparency does not provide an open goal for fraudsters.
It appears that the drafting of Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, may not achieve what is intended. As it stands, it would seem, having read it, to place a duty on banks or institutions, rather than individuals, to receive legal advice before complying with a notice. The DWP, in any case, has access to legal advice intradepartmental, so it would be up to the department’s discretion to use this on a case-by-case basis and should not be statutory.
If, however, the noble Lord’s intent, which became clearer in his remarks, is to ensure that individuals affected by DWP actions can access advice or support, that is a broader and legitimate issue. However, this amendment does not appear to address it; therefore, we do not and cannot support it. Individuals might choose to consult a lawyer, but this would be up to them. Can the Minister confirm that no taxpayers’ funds would be used to fund this, if this was indeed the intention?
We welcome the Government’s change in Amendment 61 to extend the review period from seven to 14 days. This responds directly to concerns raised by these Benches and by other noble Lords in Committee that the original timeframe was too short for financial institutions to act upon. It is a practical and welcome step that reflects the realities of compliance, and we are glad that the Government have listened.
Finally, we have some sympathy with Amendment 62, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I remember that the noble Baroness spoke to this in Committee. It is right that individuals should be able to understand, at least in part, the role of algorithms used in decisions that affect them, and being able to have sight of this as part of a review makes sense. However, transparency must not come at the cost of investigatory integrity. As I stated earlier, there is a delicate balance between fairness to individuals and protecting methods that could be exploited if disclosed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked many questions, which I will certainly not repeat. I simply ask the Minister to clarify how these concerns might be addressed in practice, perhaps through the review or the appeal mechanism, while maintaining that balance.
Finally, we welcome that the amendments in this group provide us with an opportunity to have a further discussion on this important part of the Bill, the essence of its prime aim. We are grateful to the Government for listening to the concerns that were raised in Committee, as well as to other noble Lords for identifying areas about which they are concerned and offering the Government the chance to comment. We shall be listening with interest to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and, indeed, throughout Committee. We have a better Bill as a result, and I am grateful for that. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his support for the principle we are discussing here and for his gracious acknowledgement of the improvements to the Bill. I thank him for that; it was a kind and gracious comment, and I appreciate it.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I will not dwell on this matter, but I am grateful to him for accepting that, even if he came at the issue from a slightly different angle, he is happy with where we have ended up. I thank him again for pushing us, throughout the stages of the Bill, in various ways, and I am grateful that he has accepted where we have ended up with our amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is absolutely right that her amendment is not nuanced; it lands firmly in the court of whatever the opposite of nuance is. In a sense, it is straightforward: her party does not support these measures at all. I have no doubt that, were her party to form a Government, it would locate another place to find £1 billion to make up for this. However, our party is determined that, if we are to spend money on social security, it should go to the people who are entitled to it and the people who need it—it should not go to other people. We will take the necessary measures to make sure that that happens, and we are doing that in this Bill. We also want to make sure that it is done appropriately and with enough safeguards, and I hope that I have shown to the House my willingness to bend over backwards to provide those safeguards. The principle is that people should not get money to which they are not entitled; it should go to those who are entitled to it and who need it—and that is what we are doing here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, is right that my noble friend Lord Sikka’s Amendment 60 applies to the section that covers penalties that may be issued to financial institutions that fail to comply with an EVN. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be that the DWP would be required to ensure financial institutions had taken legal advice before issuing a penalty for failing to comply with an EVN. I think we would all agree that, if they need legal advice, they could probably afford it—and so we are okay on that front. However, I fully understand that it is very hard to table amendments outside government, so I take it that the intention of the amendment is as my noble friend made clear: that the DWP is required to ensure that claimants receive legal advice before the DWP can make any adjustments to a person’s claim. However, we do not regard that as either practical or necessary.
There are already existing protections for claimants whenever an overpayment is calculated, including the ability to request a mandatory reconsideration and/or appeal to tribunal. Where an individual is investigated on a suspicion of fraud, they may be interviewed under caution. In that situation, they will always be notified of their right to seek legal advice and provided information about applying for financial assistance with legal costs through legal aid. In response to the question from the noble Viscount, legal aid is funded from the public purse, so if somebody were to qualify for legal aid, it would be funded by the taxpayer in the appropriate way. I confess that that is about as much as I can offer on that front.
My noble friend Lord Sikka mentioned a range of difficult circumstances. A lot of the debate here tends to mix up fraud, error and all the other reasons for overpayments. There are different reasons why somebody may have been overpaid: it may have been a genuine error; they may have been careless; they may have forgotten or deliberately failed to tell us about some change to their circumstance that affects their entitlement; it may be fraud; or there may have been an error on the part of the state. Gathering data early minimises the extent of the build-up of any overpayment, whatever the reason. That has to be a good thing; it is what we found out elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend appreciates that that is at least part of our approach.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. As she said, Amendment 50 would require account holders to be informed. Even though I know that she does not intend the amendment to do this, the reality is that it could compromise the DWP’s ability to tackle fraud. In most cases where it is just an error that has been made, the DWP will contact claimants to give them the opportunity to explain potential incorrect payments, in which case the amendment would not be needed. However, in the cases where there is a suspicion of fraud, it would clearly undermine any criminal investigation to inform potential fraudsters that their information had been identified using an EVM or what the financial institution had identified. It might also cause unnecessary distress for those who are not guilty of fraud, such as account holders and claimants who, for example, may have a disregarded compensation payment and who otherwise would have been quite rightly left alone because they had not done anything wrong—there is no need to try to scare people into thinking that an issue will be coming down track. It would also impose further burdens on financial institutions, which would have to inform their customers about this.
Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks scrutiny of the methods that a financial institution may use to identify relevant accounts. At the risk of boring the House, I note that the EVM asks banks to return specified data only where criteria, set out in the Bill, have been met. Financial institutions operate in many ways, and it is for each individual financial institution to work out how it identifies relevant accounts, rather than for the Government to set out potentially cumbersome processes.
Just to pick up on a couple of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, I want to make this really clear: we will not be asking banks, for example, to work out whether somebody is entitled to a health benefit, such as ESA. We may ask them to identify an account into which ESA is being paid. Health data will be special data and will therefore be expressly prohibited from being returned. The intention is very simple: to ask them to identify the kind of things I described earlier. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I was giving an example. There are many examples, but that was the one I chose.
To sum up, I have set out a clear case for the EVM and how our government amendments today and other changes that have been made address many of the areas of concern. I recognise that I have not persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but I hope other noble Lords can see the point of this measure, can see the difference it would make and can understand that with the safeguards around, it is the right thing to do. The EVM will save an estimated £940 million by 2029-30. It will be a vital tool to help the DWP spot and detect errors quickly, while also assisting us in identifying fraud. I urge noble Lords to support this measure.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 75, page 43, line 31, clause 76, page 44, line 30 and Schedule 3, page 80, line 23, means that eligibility verification notices can be used only for assisting in identifying incorrect payments of a relevant benefit.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 3, page 77, line 12.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and I am pleased to have added my name to them, because both amendments make valuable and necessary clarifications to the operation and oversight of the eligibility verification mechanism—EVM—and they do so in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the Government’s objectives under this Bill.
Amendment 52 makes a particularly important clarification. As the Government have repeatedly described their approach to the EVM as a test and learn process, it is vital that we make clear in the Bill that the mere existence of an eligibility indicator does not in itself constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion. That may sound like a technical point, but it has real-world implications. When a system is still developing, when its data sources are still being refined and when human understanding of how it operates is still evolving, there is a very real risk of false positives and unintended consequences.
The Government have said that there is some clarification within the process of an investigation that would help to clarify that persons subject to an EVM are not guilty, and that there are not, therefore, necessarily reasonable grounds for suspicion. However, putting this clarification in the Bill would be a really valuable step in making this absolutely clear, in black and white, to everyone involved. This amendment removes ambiguity and ensures that this point is not in question.
We have already discussed throughout this Bill the importance of safeguards and clarity when new investigative systems are created, particularly where multiple third parties are involved in data sharing and enforcement, which is paramount. This amendment provides exactly that and sets out this lack of reasonable suspicion in the Bill so that we avoid the potentially harmful ambiguity.
Moreover, this amendment ensures that, before any intrusive action is taken—in other words, before any benefit is amended, suspended or investigated—a person of appropriate seniority and experience must review the information and confirm that there are genuine reasonable grounds for suspicion. This aspect of the amendment places human oversight where it belongs: between the algorithm and the citizen. This matters all the more because, as many noble Lords will have seen, the Government themselves are moving rapidly to expand the use of AI in fraud detection and enforcement. Only a couple of weeks ago, civil servants across Whitehall received an internal update about the significant expansion of AI use within the Public Sector Fraud Authority in an article titled:
“Behind the Scenes: Building the AI Tool that is Revolutionising Fraud Prevention”.
I listened very carefully to the passionate speech from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, added to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We believe that this makes these safeguards an urgent necessity. As we rightly modernise our defences against fraud, we must also modernise our protections against error, bias and overreach. Ensuring human involvement in that process in the way it has been set out in this Bill is fundamentally important, and this amendment provides that assurance.
Amendment 67 complements the first one by broadening the remit of the independent review of the EVM powers. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, eloquently laid out his reasoning here. It makes sure that the reviewer looks at not just operational effectiveness but proportionality, costs, unintended consequences and how these powers affect vulnerable people and those interacting with the banking system. These are precisely the areas where well-intentioned powers can have unintended harm if they are not closely monitored.
We on these Benches raised these concerns in Committee and do so again on Report. There is the potential for disproportionate costs on financial institutions, the potential chilling effect on access to basic banking services for those already on the margins and, above all, the potential for harm to vulnerable people who find themselves caught up in complex enforcement processes. It is right that the independent reviewer should have these matters placed explicitly within their remit. I am therefore glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has framed his amendment to achieve exactly that. We need to recover public money which has been overpaid—we are in no doubt on that point—but doing so in a way that causes more harm than good benefits no one. The reviewer must have regard to this, not as a suggested area of review but as a statutory duty.
These are measured, practical amendments that I believe carry broad support across the House. They are not about blocking the Bill or frustrating its purpose: they are about ensuring that the new systems it creates are used wisely, fairly and proportionately. We therefore hope that the Government will listen and take these proposals seriously, recognise their constructive intent and accept them as a genuine improvement to the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, decides to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be supporting him.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. My response to these amendments builds on the arguments I made at greater length in the last group.
Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, states that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for the suspicion of fraud under Section 109BZB of the Social Security Administration Act. I have sought to assure noble Lords already today that a conclusion will never be drawn from EVM information. At the point the information is shared, no one is suspected of having done anything wrong and therefore, by definition, no action could be taken to correct the thing that could have been done wrong because no one is suspected of having done anything wrong. I could not be clearer on that.
I think it is worth reminding the House that there are two different things happening here. This measure allows DWP to ask banks to flag up accounts that may on the face of it have received a benefit to which someone is not entitled. That is a piece of information that comes into the department. Along with other pieces of information, it will be sifted and examined, and decisions will be made through the usual processes. DWP does this all the time, with all kinds of information. Those decisions are made. Pursuing fraud is something that is done day to day. Whenever DWP receives data in response to an EVM, the data will be matched with information that DWP holds, so it can identify the claimant and any inconsistencies between the information received from the financial institution and the information provided by the claimant over the life of their claim. It will also look at any possible disregards and any other relevant information, as I explained on the last group.
It is only then, as with our current practice, when a possible inconsistency is identified, that steps will be taken to determine how or even whether a claim needs to be reviewed. In some cases, it will be clear that no further action is required and the data from the EVM will be used no further. In cases of potential error, DWP may contact the customer to discuss the claim or ask for further information. In cases where potential fraud is then suspected, the case may be passed to an authorised officer, who will consider all relevant information to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a DWP offence has been committed.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a passionate speech, and he is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. If what he suspected was happening, his passion would be justified, but I want to persuade him that it is misplaced. The decision to judge that someone has been guilty of fraud and to take action is not an automatic process. It is also not a determination that can be made by just anyone. It can be made only by an authorised officer in the DWP. If there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that a DWP offence has been committed, the case is passed back to the relevant benefit team or compliance team. At all times during that process, as is the case now, DWP will ensure that any next steps are reasonable and proportionate. There are no immediate suspensions of benefits during the process and, where appropriate, DWP will always endeavour to work with the customer to establish the facts around a benefit claim and identify any possible vulnerabilities. I hope that my position on that is clear and is made even clearer by the government amendments—
Lord Deben (Con)
If that is so, what is wrong with making it statutory? The issue is that what the Minister says is what now happens. We are concerned about what could happen if it is not in the Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, it is in the Bill. The requirement for reasonable suspicion for exercising powers under Clause 109BZB is set out in that clause. The fact that an account meets an eligibility indicator does not necessarily mean that there are any grounds for suspicion of fraud or other offences. It does not even necessarily mean that a benefit has been overpaid. Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3B on eligibility verification makes clear that eligibility indicators only indicate that a benefit
“may have been, or may be, incorrectly paid”.
The eligibility indicators in an eligibility verification notice must be criteria which indicate that the specified relevant benefit may have been or may be incorrectly paid.
The legislation therefore clearly reflects that EVM information will have to be considered alongside all other relevant information before further steps are taken. As I have said, DWP is required to consider all relevant information to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence. This is about not just this but about existing legislation and powers. I hope that my position on that is clear and that the government amendments in the previous group have helped to make it clearer.
Amendment 52 also requires that the information be reviewed by an appropriately senior person. We do not know exactly what the definition is of a senior person. However, it is an established legal principle that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press it.
Amendment 67 would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVM independent reviewer will be required to undertake. Government Amendments 68 and 69, spoken to in an early group by my noble friend Lady Anderson, addressed paragraph (f) of that requirement by requiring the Secretary of State to provide information to the independent reviewer where it is “reasonably required”. In case there are any concerns about that, we foresee a close working relationship between DWP and the independent EVM reviewer, where DWP gives the reviewer the information that it needs.
However, the government amendment makes it even clearer that we are committed to providing necessary information. If necessary, DWP could ask the reviewer to demonstrate why a certain piece of information is necessary for the purposes of their review, by reference to the scope of the review and the matter that it has to cover, as set out in legislation. If the independent reviewer then demonstrates that the information is necessary for them to carry out their review, the legislation is clear that DWP must provide it.
On paragraph (d) of this amendment regarding costs incurred by business, this is a matter the Government take seriously. We are committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate and to a minimum. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is well aware, over the passage of the Bill we have worked very closely with UK Finance to improve the Bill and our draft codes of practice. At a recent meeting with Ministers, UK Finance welcomed this extensive engagement, which it feels has significantly strengthened the Bill. It indicated that it was not calling for further legislative change.
Crucially, I do not regard this amendment as necessary because the independent reviewer must already assess the measure’s effectiveness. Financial institutions receiving an EVN have the right to appeal a notice that is unduly onerous. We have committed to provide a further impact assessment 12 months after Royal Assent.
Paragraph (e) of the amendment would require the independent reviewer to include within their annual report any adverse effect that the EVN may have on vulnerable persons’ or benefit claimants’ access to banking services. I assure the noble Lord and the House that protecting DWP customers, especially those who are vulnerable, is very much a priority for this Government. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
First, there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We have been clear that information does not imply any wrongdoing. The Bill makes provision to exempt financial institutions from returning suspicious activity reports in certain circumstances if the information that they have is only the result of an EVM match. We are working with the FCA to prevent any unintended consequences. Secondly, as I have indicated, this measure simply provides a source of data that feeds into the long-standing processes in DWP, where layers of support and specialist staff already exist to ensure that those who are vulnerable or have complex needs get the right support. Thirdly, this measure will help our customers, including those who are vulnerable. It will help us to spot genuine errors in claims early, help us to take steps to correct these and prevent large overpayments and debts building up that are recoverable.
I hope that the arguments which I have put out there have been enough to persuade the House on why we should move ahead. I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his generous words, and the Minister for her fulsome response. On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about allowing people to get away with fraud, I want to make it really clear that I do not want people to get away with fraud. I am as keen as anyone to make sure that fraud and error are reduced. Please do not take away from this that I am soft on fraud. I hope my track record on fraud is well known within this House.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 3, page 80, line 30.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the period of time within which a person given an eligibility verification notice can apply for a review of the decision to give the notice.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 3, page 80, line 30.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 3, page 77, line 12.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 76, page 44, line 38, would mean that the Secretary of State must provide information where the information is reasonably required for the purposes of independent reviews carried out under new section 121DC of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, a lot of questions have been asked and I will do my best to answer them all. I will start by making clear what we are seeking to do. These powers would give authorised and trained DWP officers the ability to use reasonable force. We want them to be able to use that against property, not against people. Making a distinction in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, does in one of his amendments is not straightforward, despite the wishes of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger.
A number of noble Lords have said that they would be horrified to see civil servants using powers meant for the police. I am sure that members of the previous Government will be aware that HMRC, Border Force and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority already have these powers. This is not unprecedented.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken on this Bill before, and I was genuinely trying to be helpful to the Minister. She has just said that you cannot make an easy distinction between the use of force against things and people. That is exactly the point. If you give powers to be used against things, you will get drawn into using them against people. I am well aware that Border Force has these powers, but if she talks to her noble friend sitting next to her she will find out that, as a result of the independent inquiry we had, there is extensive training for Border Force and for immigration enforcement officers before they are allowed use that force. That is my counsel; I urge her to be cautious.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will come on to answer all the noble Lord’s questions if he will give me a moment to do so. I have not got there. That was my opening paragraph. I will answer the points one by one, so I hope he will be patient with me.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, did not mean to do this, but the impression he and some other speakers gave is that the DWP will seek to use these powers against an average benefit claimant who has accidentally overclaimed by £20. I make it clear that this power cannot be used in those circumstances. It will be used where the DWP has a reasonable belief that someone has intentionally committed sophisticated, often high-value fraud against the DWP. These operations seek to find evidence of criminality that is not obtainable through the DWP’s other criminal investigation powers, such as its information-gathering powers, which would be the normal route for obtaining evidence in investigations. To use these powers, we have to seek a warrant from the court. The warrant application will go to the court, which will be the ultimate arbiter of whether a warrant is approved, based on a relevant justification. Those warrants have to be used for investigating serious organised criminality, and those offences tend to be high-value and complex. For that to happen, there would need to be reasonable suspicion related to indictable offences. We are not talking about individuals who have accidentally been overpaid a small amount of money.
I will go through the specifics that have been raised. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, wants to do with his amendments and his desire to limit the use of reasonable force to property and not people. However, the use of reasonable force is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 198, which, as he pointed out, does not distinguish between the use of force on items and persons. There is no precedent for breaking down the PACE power of reasonable force to restrict it to people or items. As I will go on to explain in a moment, to do so could result in unintended consequences.
The DWP has been clear from the outset that its intention is that reasonable force will be used only against things, not people. That will be made clear in guidance and training. The power will enable DWP-authorised investigators to use reasonable force to access locked cabinets and digital devices once they are lawfully on a premises. Without that ability to secure evidence, the DWP would have to continue to be reliant on the police, who would need to remain on the premises for the duration of the search activity. Imagine a situation where, for example, a significant universal credit fraud has taken place. There are potentially a lot of papers, either in filing cabinets in a premises or on devices. The police effect entry to a premises and secure them. The police stay there, and we ask them to carry on picking up every single file so that DWP officials can tell them if it is right or not. The police could be out on the streets tackling real crime and protecting people or they could spend that time in the premises while the DWP searches devices.
I understand the intention behind the amendments—
Lord Harper (Con)
I know, but I am trying to ask some sensible questions. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will have to decide whether to press Amendment 76. I encourage him to press Amendment 75 and take this out completely. The Minister just talked about the police having to stay there to pick up files and devices. Why would they need to use force to do that? That is an administrative exercise. She is in danger of defending the indefensible in an unnecessarily complicated way. We are trying to be helpful.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his help but I will try to manage for now. To open a filing cabinet or to open a device without the consent of the owner requires using reasonable force. I fully accept that he does not think that the DWP should have any of those powers. I hope he will bear with me and allow me to move through the arguments to make a case as to why I think it is necessary. If I cannot persuade him then I accept that, and he will go into the other Division Lobby, but I hope he will allow me to explain why I think this is necessary and proportionate.
One of the risks of the approach that has been taken to try to limit the use of reasonable force as set out by PACE is that it could have the unintended consequence of removing an authorised investigator’s common-law right to self-defence—for example, if they were physically threatened during a search and seizure activity. Clearly, the safety of our authorised investigators is paramount and they, like anyone else, must have the right to defend themselves if threatened. We will of course take a number of steps to ensure staff members’ safety. That includes conducting risk assessments on application for the warrant and during the search and seizure activity itself, and equipping staff with critical safety equipment and protective clothing.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about training. All DWP-authorised investigators will be required to complete training to the equivalent standard of the police before they can use these PACE powers. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that money will be made available to pay for that. We will not expect people to use these powers if they have not had appropriate training. That was a good question and I am pleased to answer it. In addition, DWP criminal investigators undertake investigative training as part of the Government Counter Fraud Profession. All staff must have training to industry standards before they can be considered even for authorised investigator status. That will ensure that staff are benchmarked to the same standard.
The DWP will not have the power of arrest. I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that the previous Government’s fraud plan, including the version put out in 2024, when he was standing where I am, proposed not only the powers we have here but that DWP staff should have the powers of arrest. We decided that was not appropriate but, as I have said, we do think that the power to have reasonable force against property is reasonable. We have taken what I think is a proportionate view. In the situation described, where the DWP arrives at premises but the police are not there and its staff find their entry is obstructed, the policy will be that they should remove themselves from any potential danger and request police presence.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also mentioned oversight. We will be commissioning His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to inspect the use and effectiveness of these powers in England and Wales and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland to do so there. These inspections can focus on any part of the end-to-end criminal investigation and their reports will be published by the Secretary of State. In addition, the Independent Office for Police Conduct will be responsible for reviewing any serious incidents or complaints in relation to these powers in England and Wales, with the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner responsible in Scotland.
While I am here, two other questions were asked on the IOPC. In one, I think the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said that the IOPC regs were a Henry VIII power. I am advised that they are not, because they do not seek to amend or repeal primary legislation. The proposed amendments to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act are contained in the Bill itself. On the question of funding, the DWP has secured the necessary agreements with the IOPC and will continue to work closely and in partnership with it to ensure that its needs are considered, including financial arrangements. The regulations will make provision as to payment for this service and permit the lawful disclosure of sensitive files and information relating to the exercise of the functions and powers. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on that point.
On the other questions that have been mentioned, just to be clear, the drafting in Schedule 4 for Scotland is intended to clarify that force cannot be used to compel individuals to provide information when required to do so by a court protection order. This mirrors PACE as it applies in England and Wales. On the exercise of reasonable force when executing search warrants, the provisions in the Bill both in Scotland and in England and Wales are comparable. I hope that reassures noble Lords who think that we think that people in Scotland are less dangerous than people in England and Wales. I can assure them that is not the case.
Noble Lords asked about the difference between the PSFA and the DWP. Primarily, this is a matter of scale. A tailored approach has been adopted by the DWP and the PSFA. The PSFA is likely to do a smaller number of investigations; the scale at which the DWP operates would be a very different use of police resource than it would be in the case of the PSFA. Therefore, we think it is appropriate.
Finally, I think somebody—I am sorry, I have forgotten which noble Lord this was—asked whether we would use this provision against vulnerable people, benefit claimants being vulnerable. Again, another form of reassurance is that the law requires any warrant application to include information about any vulnerable individuals who may be present on the premises. As a result, the DWP has to conduct risk assessments before even applying to the court.
I understand the comments that have been made. I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that our proposals are proportionate. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for giving us the benefit of his real-life experience on this and the very powerful example of how this can go wrong.
I confess that I am not persuaded of the need for DWP officers to have the ability to use reasonable force and I am tempted to go down the route the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggests of removing it altogether. However, I want to be constructive. I do not want to ruin the Bill, so I think I can live with a situation where the Bill tries to mirror what the Minister has said the powers will be used for and limit it to that. If she thinks there are unintended consequences from that, those can be fixed at a later stage, at Third Reading. I make the point now that it is outrageous that Third Reading is in less than two days’ time from now, on Thursday. That is not the way we do things in this House. It does not give us time to sit down and try to work things out. I put it on record that it is just wrong.
I was slightly confused by one thing the Minister said. She described a situation where the police are there throughout as a waste of police time, when they could be off dealing with real crime, but just the sentence before she told us that this will be used only in cases of sophisticated high-value fraud. Is that not real crime? I confess that I am a bit confused by that.
Anyway, nothing I have heard has changed my view about the ability to use reasonable force against people being appropriate for DWP officials, particularly if the police are likely to be there all along anyway. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75, but I will, when the time comes, test the opinion of the House on Amendment 76.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment to clause 83, page 50, lines 25 and 26, would remove provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing clause 101.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 87, page 52, line 24.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment. I will start by gently reminding him of something. He said that we should not avoid oversight because it is inconvenient. Does he remember that when his Government, led and represented by him, introduced equivalent powers to many of these in the DPDI Bill, there was literally no independent oversight at all anywhere in that Bill? So, I am very happy to respond on the way we are putting it in, but I hope the House will give us credit for having actually put in significant independent oversight, and I would encourage him to remember that.
Having said that, while I understand the rationale for Amendments 86 to 88, we do not believe that they are appropriate or necessary. DWP’s intention for Clause 89 is to appoint an independent, external inspectorate body to inspect DWP’s end-to-end criminal investigations. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services has provided this function for public services for over 160 years. DWP has committed to commissioning HMICFRS as the body best placed to provide an independent inspection role in England and Wales and, similarly, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, for Scotland. I can assure the House that DWP are committed to ensuring the right level of scrutiny for these powers and will follow existing HMICFRS and HMIC Scotland’s processes and guidance, which requires transparency and accountability.
These inspectorate bodies bring huge experience of working in this area, providing robust inspections to other similar bodies. That is why DWP will work with them to agree mutually that each inspection takes place over a suitable period, so that they are assessing and reporting on a period which realistically reflects DWP’s use of search and seizure powers. DWP has worked closely with both HMICFRS and HMIC Scotland, and we understand that sharing information is an integral part of the inspection process. That is why the department is committed to providing all relevant information, so that meaningful inspections can be carried out.
It is important to highlight the unnecessary risk Amendments 86 and 87 create. These amendments could result in sharing information with the inspectorate that could then become disclosable material in a live investigation, potentially jeopardising the outcome. Because of the range of investigatory techniques used during DWP criminal investigations, it is important that the Secretary of State retains discretion not to provide information when the consequences of sharing that information outweigh the benefit to an inspection—for instance, to protect customers or prevent compromising future prosecutions. Depending on the circumstances, examples of such sensitive material not suitable for sharing might include material given in confidence, details about witnesses or other persons who may be in danger if their identities are revealed, material revealing the location of any premises or other place used for surveillance, and material relating to the private life of a witness. I hope that explains why I cannot accept these amendments.
Amendment 88 seeks to extend the remit and scope of an independent person appointed under Clause 89. We have already confirmed that this will be HMICFRS and HMIC Scotland. They will provide an additional safeguard to ensure that the DWP is using these powers proportionally and in line with their intended purpose. However, although the inspectorates are very impressive in their fields, it is clearly not within their remit to assess expenditure or amounts recovered and conduct cost-benefit assessments of the various measures in the Bill. But the Office for Budget Responsibility has certified the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits contained in this Bill and, separately, our impact assessment clearly outlines the estimated costs and how we will scale up our rollout to deliver the savings and commits to monitoring and evaluation of Part 2 of the Bill.
I also remind the House of the existing reporting mechanisms for the DWP’s fraud and error activities that make this amendment unnecessary. In the DWP’s annual report and accounts, the department reports on the savings made from our fraud and error activities, including savings made from activity across our counterfraud and targeted case review teams. In addition, we also report on our debt recovery totals and debt stock. The departmental annual report and accounts are reviewed and scrutinised by the National Audit Office, which publishes a report on the accounts and provides independent assurance to Parliament on the proper use of public funds.
Finally, a question was asked about what is different between the DWP and the PSFA. The type and nature of DWP and PSFA criminal investigations are likely to be very different. That means the risks and decisions involved in disclosing sensitive material are different for each organisation. Due to the function it plays, the DWP is likely to have significantly more individuals who may be vulnerable, and it considers that disclosing sensitive material relating to those persons is not an appropriate approach for it to adopt. For that reason, the DWP must be able to withhold material in such cases to ensure that there is no detriment or risk to vulnerable persons who may be placed at risk.
To conclude, the DWP is committed to transparency and to delivering this Bill and its savings, but I do not think it is helpful or necessary to ask the inspectorates to step outside their existing remit given the routes already in place. I therefore urge the noble Viscount not to press his amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I am afraid we are still not persuaded on the point we raised around the powers of the independent reviewer to be provided with information. I certainly do not want to repeat what I said in opening but, in response to her earlier remarks, I want her to be clear that we recognise that some progress has been made on the Bill after a year. Without further ado, I have listened very carefully and heard her responses to Amendments 86 to 88, and I will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 87. I beg leave to withdraw.