Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting)

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

Q That was since the pandemic. The overall figure is £35 billion, and last year it was £9.7 billion.

Ellen Lefley: I am grateful. It is a difficult one. For example, we could have almost zero crime in this country if everyone’s house had 24/7 surveillance installed. There will always be a way of decreasing privacy to increase state surveillance and therefore reduce unwanted behaviour, but the balance needs to be struck. Justice’s view is that when the state is getting new powers to investigate people’s private affairs, the balance is struck by having that reasonable suspicion threshold, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed. That ensures that the powers given to the state in any primary legislation are not open to abuse or arbitrariness. Of course, the laws in the statute book must be written narrowly so that they protect rights on the face of it, rather than being written broadly and relying on the self-restraint of future Administrations to exercise them proportionately.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Q The Information Commissioner has indicated that some of the areas of previous concern on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill have been answered. Do you not share that position, and do you continue to have concerns in that area?

Ellen Lefley: We continue to have concerns, acknowledging that there are two key oversight mechanisms in the Bill that were not in the previous one: this independent reviewer role and the code of practice. It would be far easier for Justice, but more importantly for Parliament, to be assured of the proportionality of any human rights infringement if that code of practice were before us.

Paragraph 79 of the human rights memorandum to the Bill notes that the code of practice will significantly impact whether the EVN measures are proportionate and prevent arbitrary interference with people’s privacy. It would therefore be very helpful to see that detail in order for Parliament to be confident about the content of that code of practice and how these powers will actually be used.

[Mike Wood]

Q I want to stay on the artificial intelligence framework. You have spoken about the changes being made in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Other than the undertakings given by Ministers, what legal restrictions would there be on the operation of artificial intelligence in decision-making and investigation under this Bill?

Ellen Lefley: I will try to give a very brief summary of the wider legislative framework that operates with respect to artificial intelligence in general. There are, of course, human rights obligations on any public authority or any authority exercising public functions, as well as equality obligations against direct and indirect discrimination. There is the data protection framework, which of course relates to personal data. Then there are different obligations on artificial intelligence use within different sectoral areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Q We also heard, from the previous panel in particular, that disabled people lack confidence or trust in the Department for Work and Pensions—and I think that goes across Government—as a result of their treatment in the last 14 years. The DWP is facing a potential legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission because of the last Government’s treatment of disabled people specifically. Is there additional work, beyond the measures in the Bill, from either of your Departments, to try to tackle some of those trust and confidence issues, and to try to rebuild confidence in how the Department and the Government treat disabled people?

Andrew Western: Yes. We are always looking at ways that we can build stronger relationships and build trust. On specific interventions, I would argue that—although it runs contrary to the evidence that we heard from the witnesses—there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, to build trust not just with disabled people but with all people in receipt of benefits, because we will be able to check that they are entitled to what they have. The capture of overpayments at an earlier stage and the ability to know that people who are genuine claimants are receiving the right amount of benefit will help to build that trust.

What really erodes trust is someone being captured in a position where they think that they have, for several years, been receiving benefits to which they are entitled but then end up with, for instance, a £35,000 debt to the Department. There is a suite of activity ongoing with stakeholders. The Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing a tremendous amount of work to reach out to repair relationships where that needs to happen. That work must continue because people make a fair point when they tell us that they are fearful of the DWP. I speak to people who do not want to apply for current benefits; they want to stay on legacy benefits because they fear they will lose entitlement through the application process. That is something that we need to constantly keep under review. We need to look at what we can do to improve those relationships.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Q A number of times you mentioned the importance of human engagement throughout the investigative process. Are you convinced that this programme will be sufficiently resourced? The previous Government, for the DWP angle, said that they needed an extra 1,400 counter-fraud officers and 2,000 additional officers to look at universal credit. Are you confident that you will be able to deliver these investigations in a timely fashion and achieve the savings that you want?

Andrew Western: That is an important question, on which I have sought to reassure myself. We have already been through a spending review process in which we secured additional funding for further targeted case review officers and officers in the fraud space. I actually think that the number of fraud staff in the Department is slightly concerning not because of a lack but because the number of people suggests the scale of the problem. Because of the spiralling nature of fraud, we have had no option but to significantly scale up the number of people working on both prevention and detection of it. I hope that by embracing new technology, and through data sharing and other mechanisms, we can gradually reduce that number over time. It is a damning indictment of the state that we are in with fraud and error that we have that number of people.

To answer the question, I am assured and we have secured funding for the people that we need.

[The Chair]

There being no further questions, I thank the Ministers, and all the witnesses, for their participation.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)

Agricultural Property Relief

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is starting to feel a bit like groundhog day, because the Government are clearly not listening to the entire agricultural economy, community or experts. Let us go back to the beginning and have a brief history lesson. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) just mentioned that the Government said prior to the election that they had no intention of changing APR. At the Budget, the Chancellor told us that this was a measure to prevent very wealthy individuals from buying up agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. That was proven by analysis of the policy to be untrue, so there was a pivot and we were told that the measure was about raising revenue for public services in rural areas. Then the OBR said, “Well, actually, it’s not going to raise the revenue it says it’s going to raise,” so the whole thing has unravelled week after week.

We have heard from other hon. Members today about the issue of the APR analysis not taking into account the BPR effect, and what that does for tenant farmers and farmers who have used BPR as one vehicle to wrap everything into in the event of a death. We have farmers, agricultural organisations, supermarkets, tax experts—even The Observer this weekend—coming out against the policy. It is truly remarkable that the Government have managed to unite all those people against one single measure.

Today, quite significantly, we had analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. That is important, because the AHDB is a non-departmental Government body, not a lobbying organisation. Its analysis, using data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the farm business survey and the Scottish Government, says that over 75% of farms will be affected by this measure—three times the amount that the flawed Treasury modelling said.

Most of those farms simply cannot afford a large inheritance tax bill because, as we all know, they do not have the income to pay it. The result will be the sale of land upon death, most likely to the wealthy individuals or businesses that this very policy was allegedly meant to deter. In turn, that will take land out of production, risking both our food security and local agricultural economies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made a really important point about the impact on construction firms, feed merchants, hauliers, plumbers, electricians—all those who rely on a healthy farming sector.

The Government have ploughed on, with their head in the sand, but at what cost? There is a political cost —the decimation of Labour’s reputation in the countryside —but, more importantly, there is a human cost. This measure has placed enormous stress on family farms and, unforgivably, we have heard stories of suicide.

If the Chancellor can look again at non-doms, she can look again at this policy. If the Treasury is seeking to deter the wealthy from buying agricultural land, let us look at this again. If it is seeking to raise revenue, let us look at this again. The farmers are not going to back down, and we are not going to back down, so let us do the right thing, get round the table and find a better way forward.