Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I thank the Government for the steps taken to improve the Bill since it was debated in Committee. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns about elements of the Bill, but it is in a much better place, and I thank all colleagues for working together collaboratively to drive for improvements.

Clearly, fraud is wrong. Some people believe that fraud against large organisations such as supermarkets and the Government is a victimless crime, but if we do not have that money, because it has been fraudulently claimed, we have to apply larger taxes or choose not to spend money on things such as tackling climate change. It is therefore important that it is tackled, but we need to ensure that we have two words guiding us: proportionality and fairness. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns that elements of the Bill are not as proportionate as one would wish.

I will focus my remarks on Lords amendment 43. We Liberal Democrats feel that more responsibility should be given to the independent reviewer in relation to proportionality and fairness. We still have concerns about the blanket approach, where mass fishing will effectively occur with the proposals before us. One does not have to look that far back in recent IT history to see where things have gone wrong. I believe it was only last week that child benefit was frozen for 23,500 households across the United Kingdom, because those families left the country and were not accounted for when they returned. That error was made on a computer system, and that affected just a small proportion of those to whom this Bill is set to be applied.

The reasonableness of Ministers was debated repeatedly in Committee. I am not questioning the reasonableness of the current Minister, or multiple Ministers who preceded him, but I question what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power in the Oval Office. What may be seen as “reasonable” in politics in the United Kingdom is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America. We must ensure that we guard against that future in the legislation we are putting forward now.

On the use of force, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have taken a step in the right direction in their amendment, although we feel that it could be stronger. We would encourage colleagues to vote against the Government’s proposals, because we strongly support Lords amendment 43.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I must say that I do get a bit edgy when Front Benchers agree so much.

In respect of Lords amendment 84, I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I am aware, it will now be a human being making the decisions: an authorising officer. The authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information—that is what the Minister said—but it is still not clear to me whether a decision can be made simply on the basis of the EVM information. It would therefore be useful if the Government’s intention were read into the record more clearly.

As for Lords amendment 43, I want to follow up on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). We have received representations with regard to, in particular, people suffering from mental health issues, some of whom would be leading chaotic lives. The Minister is right to say that it is not for Ministers to engage in the process of making individual decisions because that is for the authorising officers to do, but the one occasion on which the Minister can be held to account is when the annual independent review takes place.

According to my understanding, the Minister said that the reviewer would not be prevented from exploring the issue of the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. May I suggest that that could be strengthened? Perhaps he will tell us when he responds to the debate. It is not just about prevention; it is appropriate for the independent review to consider that issue, largely because of the representations that we have received consistently throughout our debates on the Bill, and from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and, in particular, mental health challenges. A statement to that effect would be more reassuring than the words that we have heard so far.

I do not really understand why the Government would resist this, because it is just a basic element of accountability in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the House throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment, and, although the last Government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides. In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the Bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary.

I would welcome a clarification from the Minister, or perhaps a strengthening of the words that he has used so far.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Everyone accepts that we need to keep a handle on fraud, but the powers being taken in the Bill, including DWP access to people’s private bank accounts, go much further than anything we have seen in the past. Can we trust the DWP to exercise these sweeping new powers in a fair and responsible way? Unfortunately, past DWP errors have had the most tragic consequences.

Philippa Day was 27 years old when she died. She was found unconscious next to a letter from the DWP refusing her request for an at-home assessment. Philippa had agoraphobia and anxiety, making it impossible for her to attend a personal independence payment assessment in person. Those at the DWP knew that—they were told by her sister, and they would have been told by her mental health team if they had bothered to speak to them, but they did not. The letter by her side was the last of a long back-and-forth exchange with the DWP. During their final conversation about the DWP, Philippa said to her sister, “I’m done trying to fight them.” But why was she having to fight them in the first place? Surely this is a system that was designed to help.

The coroner’s report identified 28 separate failings by the DWP and its private assessor, Capita. Errors were made from the very outset: her PIP claim form was lost, her mental health needs were not logged, and no attempts were made to communicate with her mental health team or her GP to ensure that the very system designed to help her would do just that. It is easy to see, with a system riddled with errors and seemingly devoid of compassion, how someone could be driven to just give up the fight. Philippa wrote:

“I’m not dying because I’m suicidal... I’ve been so trapped for so long, and then comes along the government people, who I had assumed are there to help. Since January the 11th 2019 my benefits have been severely cut”.

I also want to share with the House what happened to Kristie Hunt. Kristie was training to become a nurse. She was 31. She had been on PIP and employment and support allowance until she rejoined the workforce after 13 years—admirable, considering her struggles with mental health. She, like Philippa, was basically a strong person.

Kristie informed the DWP about her return to employment, but staff forgot to log her call, so Kristie was hounded by calls and letters from the counter-fraud team. The DWP even sent incorrect information to her local council, resulting in further letters and threats of losing her home. For months, Kristie was subjected to erroneous accusations of fraud and threats of losing her flat and the life she had fought so hard to build back. On her final call with the DWP, she was noted as being confused and tearful, yet no one even asked whether she was okay. No one flagged concerns for her welfare. All they wanted was the money.

Kristie is an example of a person using the system that was designed to support her back into work, but was instead the victim of mistake after mistake. There are many others I could describe: Karen McBride, Stephen Carré, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodey Whiting, Roy Curtis and James Oliver. All of them were wrongly hounded by the DWP, which at least contributed to their deaths.

It does not reassure me that part of the name of this Bill starts with “Fraud”, when the biggest cause of overpayment is departmental error. The DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes. That is a cultural failing, and it is wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward. Do the Government really believe that this Bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants? One thing is for sure: there will be more DWP mistakes.

Going forward, I would ask that the Government commit to making coroners’ reports automatically available to the public in every case where there is a link to the DWP’s actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I begin by thanking the Members who have contributed for what were thoughtful contributions, even where we fundamentally disagree on aspects of the Bill.

I have already outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach, but I will respond briefly to some of the specific points made in the debate. First, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both Houses have engaged on the Bill. She is correct that we have ended up in a better place, and I thank her and all Members who fed into that process—that is the point of it. I am pleased with where we have ended up.

The hon. Lady asked two specific questions. I can confirm that there will be a take-note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced, at the point when statutory guidance is laid before Parliament. I can also confirm that Members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent reviewer.

I will briefly touch on some of the points surrounding Lords amendment 43, which has taken up the majority of the debate. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Horsham (John Milne) and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).

First, I think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the Bill or in amendments that have come forward today. On the question of costs, for instance, the independent reviewer already has to look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force.

I will turn to the question of vulnerable people, which the hon. Member for Horsham in particular illustrated very eloquently indeed, with moving examples. I want to say something specifically on debanking, which is a concern that has been raised multiple times throughout the stages of the Bill. We are very clear that nobody—vulnerable or otherwise—should be debanked as a result of the Bill, as was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today. There are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes. On vulnerable people, Lords amendment 82 clarifies that the use of the power must be “necessary and proportionate”, which I believe would cover this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a specific point on whether EVM information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation; we must consider all other relevant information. Practically, that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or for any other reason that someone may have capital in excess of £16,000—the limit—before taking any action.

However, as I said earlier, I do think that this Bill is much improved from where we started.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to clarify one point. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done, because that is, to be fair, the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the Government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed. When we had the work capability assessment, it took us 10 years and more than a thousand suicides before people accepted that there was a problem, because there was no review mechanism publicly available. That is all this amendment is asking for. All I am asking for today is for the Minister to put on the record very clearly that it is perfectly appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at the harms that could have been created by this legislation.

[Andrew Western]

I appreciate the point my right hon. Friend is making. As I have just said, the question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and proportionate is baked into the Bill, and I believe that would cover the points he is making. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to attend the meeting with the independent reviewer that I referred to earlier to stress that point. I will certainly go along, and I will undertake to press on that, too.

I understand where we are on Lords amendment 43, but with the additional safeguards that will be baked in through the amendments in lieu, I believe we have reached a point where the Bill will achieve what it needs to while being fair and protecting vulnerable people. I urge all colleagues to support the Government proposals today.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 75.

Lords amendment 75, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31.

Clause 75

Eligibility verification: independent review

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Andrew Western.)