Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

John Milne Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I have great respect for the experience and intelligence of the Ministers behind the Bill, but what we have left in front of us today is no more than a clumsy salvage operation. How on earth did we end up here? The Government say that the cost of disability benefit is spiralling out of control. They say there is no option but to make cuts. However, the premise behind this argument is too simplistic. Overall, the cost of in-work benefits as a percentage of GDP has not changed much, because every time a Government try to cut one benefit, another rises in its place to compensate.

Before any changes were proposed, there should have been a serious analysis of what is driving the surge in PIP claims, but Ministers have made little attempt to understand why—it is just a curve on a spreadsheet that needs to be flattened. We are left with the implicit assumption that the Government believe that hundreds of thousands of people are currently receiving benefits that they do not really need and do not deserve.

However, there are lots of factors driving this increase, some of which are actually a direct knock-on effect of other Government policies. For example, many of the extra claimants are the result of a recent rise in retirement age; the Government have simply shunted one benefit cost—pension payments—into another—PIP. Another big slice of the increase comes from people who are unable to access healthcare in a timely fashion, especially since covid, and have therefore fallen out of the workplace. Perhaps most of all, people are driven towards benefits by the terrific rise in the cost of living—they just cannot get by any more. Fundamentally, life costs more for people who are disabled. Besides the impact on daily living, many treatments and aids are not available on the NHS.

Overall, there are three telltale signs that what we are looking at is a botched compromise. First, we have the new four-point rule for PIP assessments. Any question that scores a one, two or three will not make any difference to the outcome. If someone cannot undress their lower half and needs help to go to the toilet, incredibly, they will not qualify for help. There is literally no point in asking half the questions on the form. The whole four-point rule has been dreamed up not because anyone thinks it is a good way to assess hardship, but to hit an arbitrary cost saving.

Secondly, we have the incomprehensible proposal to change PIP assessments next year, without waiting for the outcome of the Timms review. I quote from the Commission on Social Security, which has written to the DWP:

“The circus around the proposed changes to PIP and universal credit are a classic example of what happens if policy makers do not work with those whose lives are profoundly affected by Government policy.”

Thirdly, we have the decision to give higher benefits to existing claimants than to new claimants, as if someone’s needs were somehow less because they applied after 2026. I do not know how anyone can stand over this as a credible policy.

Even on the most optimistic forecasts, only a relatively small minority of current claimants will be able to find jobs, and no account at all has been taken of regional employment blackspots. For every disabled person who can be helped back into work, there will be others moving in the opposite direction. About a third of ME and MS sufferers who are currently in work will be unable to continue as a direct result of losing PIP support, but they do not figure in the Government’s back to work estimates. We also have the 150,000 people who will lose their carer’s allowance, which is likely to rebound on the health service and wipe out whatever savings the Government had hoped to make.

The Secretary of State has set high standards to be judged by, saying:

“For me, this is a moral mission because I believe that there is a better future for people in so many parts of the country. It is absolutely not cruel.”

Well, it might have been a moral mission, but it is certainly not a moral outcome. This is not fairer and more compassionate, as the Secretary of State has claimed. It is harsher and more chaotic.

The Bill can no longer be considered a serious attempt at welfare reform—it is just a cobbled together scheme to get us through the next 24 hours. I urge all Members to vote against it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Among households as a whole, there will be more net gainers than net losers from the package. The reason for that is the increase to the standard allowance of universal credit, which according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the biggest increase to the headline rate of benefit since at least 1980. We are consulting on support for those who will lose carer’s allowance because of the changes and considering what additional help they may need, including for health and care needs. The hon. Member will have seen in the Bill we have published that we have committed to a 13-week run-on of benefit after an assessment decision so that people have time to adjust to the new situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. Already this year, we are rolling out £300 million of support through our Get Britain Working plan and Connect to Work. That will rise to £600 million next year and build to an additional £1 billion. This is the biggest ever investment into employment support for sick and disabled people, because we believe work is the route out of poverty. We want to build dignity and a better life for those who can work, while protecting those who cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Although we celebrate the success of auto-enrolment, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) has just done, we must complete the job. We need bigger and better pension funds that are better able to deliver returns for their members, support our economy and invest in infrastructure and private assets in the months and years ahead.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

10. What estimate her Department has made of the potential impact of changes to the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment on the number of people receiving that payment who will move into employment.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Pathways to Work sets out reforms to stop people falling into inactivity. They include tailored employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds, including those claiming personal independence payments, so that they can fulfil their ambitions like everybody else.

[John Milne]

The Government say that their PIP reforms will help people into employment, but the Multiple Sclerosis Society says that 60% of sufferers believe those reforms will make it harder for them to find work, not easier. An estimate must have been made of what percentage of claimants will feasibly enter employment as a result of these reforms. Will the Minister share those figures?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

This is a very important set of reforms, for exactly that reason—to make sure people do have the opportunity to move into work. One in five working-age PIP claimants were in work in March last year; we want many more to have that opportunity. We are going to improve employment support substantially, Connect to Work is being rolled out across the country this year, and there will be an additional £1 billion per year for employment support by the end of the Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the impacts of these changes will be set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the autumn Budget, and there will be very big improvements for those who are intended to benefit from them.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

John Milne Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I shall impose, with immediate effect, a four-minute time limit.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

When it comes to public money, everyone accepts the importance of preventing fraud; there is no dispute about that. The mere thought that our benefit system could be exploited loosens the cement holding our welfare system together. However, if we look back in history, there has been a track record of fraud recovery measures not delivering what was hoped. This measure will also probably never save the £1.5 billion that is expected of it, so I ask: will the alleged rewards of this legislation ever match the scale of the imposition on our civil liberties, and are we really going after the right targets?

We all want to catch deliberate and professional fraudsters, but they are precisely the people who are astute enough to change tactics, set up separate bank accounts, and avoid suspicion. Instead, it will be the innocent and the accidental claimants who fall into the trap. The implicit assumption is that we should trust in the DWP as a completely error-free organisation across the entirety of its massive operation. But the DWP does make mistakes. It makes mistakes all the time. And even when it knows that it has made a mistake, and it has been told so, it is very capable of making the same mistake all over again.

In my constituency of Horsham, Anthony and his husband were accused of providing misinformation to the DWP and were overpaid £10,000 as a result. Anthony protested without success. After a long fight the case went to appeal. The tribunal wasted no time deciding in his favour—it was an open and shut case. But then, earlier this year, Anthony and his husband were migrated over to universal credit. After confirming all details were correct, the DWP overpaid them again, and then sought to claw the money back over the following months. The DWP’s mistake, but Anthony pays the penalty.

The DWP has its rules, but real life does not run in straight lines. Real life is messy. How can we possibly rely on the DWP to mark its own homework when we know that there are just four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff?

Yes, there are some checks and balances within this legislation, but what is really needed is a profound cultural change within the DWP, and that is much harder to achieve. The common experience of people who have to deal with the DWP on a daily basis is that they feel that it is always looking to catch them out. Years and years of inflammatory rhetoric under a succession of Conservative Governments have convinced people to regard the DWP as their enemy, not their friend. If anything, the Bill digs that hole a little deeper.

What concerns me most about the Bill is its extreme overconfidence. It assumes that Government agencies always get things right and that individual citizens are to be automatically treated as objects of suspicion. In Committee, the Government were resistant to any amendments except their own, so I very much hope that they will reconsider today and accept the Liberal Democrat amendments.

Statutory Sick Pay

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point. If he bears with me, I will address that later in my contribution. It is actually one of two points I want to address.

Hon. Members will know that I tabled two amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen its provisions on statutory sick pay. The first sought to bring statutory sick pay into line with the national living wage, so that no full-time worker is forced to live in poverty while unwell. The second amendment aimed to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the new system, regardless of their earnings—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made reference to that, and I will come on to it.

First, I turn to the rate of statutory sick pay. For far too long, our statutory sick pay system has been one of inadequacy, and it has failed workers when they are at their most vulnerable. The pandemic laid bare just how broken the system is. Over a third of workers rely on statutory sick pay, and at a rate of £118.75 a week it is nothing more than a cruel joke—a poverty wage that leaves workers in financial insecurity, instead of being able to rest, recover and take the time they need to return to work fully fit.

The current rate makes up a mere 16.5% of the average weekly wage in the UK, far behind our European counterparts. To name some, workers in Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are entitled to up to 100% of their pay during sick leave. However, we do not trail far behind only our international counterparts. When statutory sick pay was introduced in the 1980s, it was equivalent to 35% of the average weekly wage—double what workers can expect today. No other financial responsibility in a worker’s life is ever slashed by 83%. When someone falls ill, their bills, their council tax, their electricity bill, their mortgage payments and their grocery bills do not suddenly go down. That poses the question: why does statutory sick pay remain such a paltry sum, forcing people to choose between their health and their financial survival?

We know that the current rate pushes too many workers into the workplace when they are simply not well enough. It entrenches presenteeism, harming public health, reducing productivity and contributing to longer-term sickness and burnout, which makes workers drop out of the workforce entirely. The clear consensus is that the rate of statutory sick pay must increase, and it must increase in line with the national living wage.

That call is echoed by unions such as Unite and Unison, and by organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Scope, Mind and Disability Rights UK. It is also supported by the majority of the British public. I urge the Minister not to ignore the swell of public opinion or the needs of workers across the UK, and to share the next steps that the Government are taking to fairly recompense workers during periods of illness.

The rate of statutory sick pay is not the only change that is urgently needed. Despite the Government’s best efforts, those on the lowest incomes, who do the hard and vital work in our economy, will be financially penalised for falling ill. These are the workers who are the backbone of our economy: cleaners, carers, drivers and retail workers. They are the very people who can least afford it. Low-paid workers—disproportionately women, young people and disabled workers—will still face the hardest burden.

The reality is that the new 80% earnings replacement rate extends sick pay to those who were previously excluded, which is very welcome, but it risks creating a system where some workers are worse off. I have worked with the Minister for many years, and I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention. But under the new rules, the reality remains that more than 300,000 workers earning between £123 and £146 a week could see their sick pay cut, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East referred to.

While previously a worker earning £123 a week was entitled to an earnings replacement of 95%, which is comparable to statutory maternity leave, for example, now a worker earning £124 for three days’ work a week will receive 80% from the first day of illness—£99.22 a week. Under the old rules they would have been entitled to the flat rate of £118.75 from the fourth day of illness. Under the new rules they will be worse off after five weeks. The fact that it takes five weeks to become worse off should not be seen as a mitigating factor, because this is not just about numbers.

The new rules will directly affect workers with chronic illnesses, those recovering from serious surgery and those undergoing cancer treatment. In short, it affects the people who can least afford to take a financial hit at the most vulnerable time of their life. These are workers who rely on every penny that they earn, and they must not be left behind under the new rules. That is the bare minimum that working people should expect.

I ask the Minister to outline how the Government will be supporting workers with chronic illnesses who fall sick, especially those who currently work and rely on disability benefits such as the personal independence payment to be able to dress, wash and get out and about in their daily lives. These workers have been left terrified by the recent announcement of changes to PIP eligibility criteria, and now they could also see statutory sick pay reduced, if they find themselves in that situation.

I urge the Government to think again about making the most vulnerable in our society pay for economic instability that is not of their making. It is not just an economic issue but a moral one. We can and must go further to support workers during their most vulnerable times.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my Horsham constituency office, I employ a member of staff who has ME. Fortunately, we can be very flexible with their working hours. However, under current law—where statutory sick pay is based on days worked not hours worked—an ME sufferer could easily miss out altogether on sick pay. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should legislate to ensure that all employees are granted fair access to sick pay?

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely—that is the crux. As I said before, I acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way. The Employment Rights Bill will make significant changes that allow millions of people to benefit from statutory sick pay when they would not have before. But the journey must not end there. The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are many people who are still missing out—there are 300,000 people who will significantly miss out, as I said.

This is not just an economic issue, and it should not be viewed as one. It is a moral issue. The Government have the power to ensure that every worker—whether in an office, a hospital, a factory or on the frontline—can take the time they need to recover without fear of financial ruin. They also have the power to ensure that no worker, especially those with long-term illnesses, receives less under the new rules than they would have received before. Let me be clear: we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without ensuring that every worker benefits from the changes we have introduced. This is our chance to build a fairer society that treats working people with the dignity and respect they deserve.

I hope the Minister, for whom I have much respect and regard, understands that I come at this from a place of support. He has a long track record of understanding these issues, and this is our opportunity. We must go further, because that is the only way we will address this matter, so I urge him to do so. Will he commit to reviewing SSP so that workers no longer have to rely on poverty pay when they are sick? Will he today commit to reviewing the impact of the new changes, specifically in relation to the 300,000 people who will be worse off under the new 80% replacement rate?

On the second question in particular, I urge the Minister to provide information to allow the House to see the impact on those 300,000 people. I do not believe for one minute that the Government intend to make them worse off; but, equally, I do not think we can just ignore it.

Finally, will the Minister outline exactly what steps he is taking to make sure that those with the most severe illnesses, and those who find themselves sick or in recovery for longer than five weeks, do not find themselves unfairly punished? The Minister knows that if we fail here, we will fail an entire generation of workers.

Welfare Reform

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of our mission is providing equal rights and choices for disabled people to work. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to develop our pathways to work employment support so that we get it right, because we will not do that unless we work closely with disabled people. We are also working right across Government—we have disability Ministers in every single Department who are driving this agenda forward—and I know that my hon. Friend will give much valued advice and help to make sure we get it right in every part of Government.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Encouraging and enabling people to get back to work is a laudable aim, but how can the Secretary of State assume £5 billion of success in advance of actually rolling out the programme? Surely the right approach is to let the reforms generate savings naturally by a concrete reduction in need, rather than to set an arbitrary target beforehand.

[Liz Kendall]

We are not setting an arbitrary target. We are fixing a broken system, and we are taking action immediately, because we believe we have to put in place employment support, health support and social care support at the same time as fixing a broken benefits system. I always start with people—what do we need to do to give people the opportunities they deserve if they can work? What do we need to do to make sure the social security system lasts? We cannot put that off any longer, because it is not good enough for the people we were elected to serve.

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

John Milne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I encourage colleagues to support these proposals about the carer’s allowance. Carers are the backbone of many households across the United Kingdom, and I hope the Minister will support the amendment.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.

The DWP is making extensive and growing use of algorithms for investigation purposes. Without proper oversight, these systems threaten error, unfairness and bias, which could lead to wrongful debt collection. Our amendment therefore calls for an independent audit of these systems at least every six months, to ensure accuracy and fairness. The audit must be conducted by experts in data science, ethics and social policy with no ties to the DWP or system developers. True independence is key.

The audit look at issues such as accuracy, so whether the algorithms are correctly identifying overpayments; fairness, so whether they unfairly target certain groups or operate with bias; and, above all, transparency and accountability. After each audit, we suggest that a full report must be published, presented to Parliament within 14 days, and made publicly accessible. If serious flaws are found, the Secretary of State must respond within 30 days with a clear action plan to fix these issues. Overall, Liberal Democrats are positive about benefiting from new technology, but we do need to consider whether it offers help, not harm.

In the wider context, what work is the use of AI generating? There are already chronic staff shortages at the DWP, with 20% vacancy rates becoming routine. Disability Rights UK has commented that operational failures now permeate every layer of welfare administration. Fraud investigation teams therefore already lack capacity to address the annual £6.4 billion of overpayments. There are only four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff, which has created a bottleneck, so that very often 90% of suspected fraud cases go uninvestigated. In other words, one could suggest there is already plenty of fraud to investigate without trawling for more. This amendment ensures regular scrutiny, transparency and fairness. I urge the Minister to consider it.

[Andrew Western]

It is important that I begin by paying tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country. The Government recognise and value the vital contribution made by carers every day in providing significant care and continuity of support to family and friends, including pensioners and those with disabilities. The 2021 census indicates that around 5 million people in England and Wales may be undertaking some unpaid care, and many of us take on a caring role at some point in our lives. Like other hon. Members, through my postbag and at events across my constituency, I see much of the work carers do. Carers are fortunate to have some wonderful advocates, not only their MPs but organisations such as Carers UK, Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute, to name but three.

We inherited a system in which busy carers already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility had been left having to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We needed to understand exactly what had gone wrong so we could set out our plan to put things right. This is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayment of carer’s allowance. We were delighted that Liz Sayce OBE agreed to lead this review, which is now well under way; we anticipate receiving its conclusions this summer.

The review will investigate how overpayments of carers allowance have occurred, what can be done to best support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future, but we are not sitting back and just waiting for the outcome of the independent review. Right now, we want to make it as easy as possible for carers to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance, so we will continue to review and improve communications. From this April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit will pegged to 16 hours’ work at national living wage levels, so in future it will increase when the national living wage increases. The earnings limit will be £196 a week net earnings, up from £151 today. As a result, over 60,000 more people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30. That is the largest increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976.

As the Chancellor said at the Budget, we need to look at the current cliff edge earnings rules. A taper could further incentivise unpaid carers to do some work and reduce the risk of significant overpayments, but introducing a taper to carer’s allowance is not without challenges. It could significantly complicate the benefit, and significant rebuilding of the carer’s allowance system would be required. The DWP has begun scoping work to see whether an earnings taper might be a feasible option in the longer term, but any taper is several years away.

New clause 10 sets out four points. As I have mentioned, an independent review has been commissioned, its terms of reference have been published and it is well under way. It is anticipated that it will report its conclusions in the summer. Both the report from the independent review and the Government’s response will be published, and we will report to the House.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Torbay on two issues. It would not be responsible of us to commit in advance to implementing all and any recommendations from such a review, sight unseen. We need to consider them carefully. In addition, the proposed new clause, as I understand it, would not have the effect he desires. We would still be able to recover overpayments of carer’s allowance from benefits under the powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

The new clause would prevent our recovering debts directly from bank accounts of those not on benefits or PAYE, which is one of the additional powers given in this Bill. Even if the new clause operated as intended, it would be disproportionate to suspend all recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments until after the review is concluded, as those with overpayments are already covered by the usual safeguards of appeal rights, affordable deductions and, in exceptional circumstances, waiver. Given the discrepancy this would create between those on PAYE and benefits and those with other forms of income, I hope the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the need to withdraw the new clause rather than create further unfairness in the system.

Regarding new clause 11, I re-emphasise that we will not speculate on the findings or any potential outcomes of the independent review. All recommendations will be considered when the independent review concludes. It would not be appropriate of the Department to commit to this new auditing requirement until that has happened, when we can take a holistic view of carer’s allowance and how DWP uses data. Nevertheless, it is helpful to set out how DWP currently uses data to verify eligibility for carer’s allowance. Verification of earnings and pensions alerts were introduced to carer’s allowance in October 2018 as part of a wider strategy to identify data sources, to verify information provided by the claimant, or to identify if information has not been provided by the claimant. Like all data we use for that, it is not intended to replace the legal requirement of a claimant to provide information that may change their entitlement to social security.

VEP alerts arise from HMRC payroll data. The alert service provides a notification of new earnings or pensions as they come into payment, or if amounts change during the life of the claim. The Department uses business rules to prioritise those alerts, based on data provided by the real-time earnings system. Since 2019, we have actioned around 50% of the alerts received in the Department as part of our focus on reducing the risk and level of overpayments. Having secured additional funding in the one-year spending review, we will be deploying additional resource in 2025-26,to action the alerts received from HMRC as quickly as possible. The Department is also testing an approach of using text messages to remind customers of the need to report changes in their circumstances.

Finally, I emphasise that the use of VEP alerts does not replace human decision making. If the Department processes an alert that highlights a change in earnings and a customer has not reported the change, DWP officials will contact the customer to confirm details have changed. If any overpayment is identified, it will be referred to debt-recovery teams. DWP remains committed to working with anyone who is struggling with their repayment terms, and will always look to negotiate sustainable and affordable repayment plans.

In the light of the information I have set out, and the ongoing work of the carer’s allowance independent review, I urge the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the proposed new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.  

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.  

New Clause 14

Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard

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

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

(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning

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

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

(a) commenced;

(b) amended; or

(c) discontinued

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[John Milne]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require that the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, should be included within the algorithmic transparency reporting standard. That standard, established by the Government, is supposed to be mandatory for all Government Departments. However, last November, The Guardian reported that not a single Whitehall Department has registered the use of AI systems since it was made mandatory.

Throughout debate on this issue, the Government have consistently downplayed the risk of using AI to trawl for suspect claimants, but if it really is that simple, why have so many organisations come out with concerns and opposition? That includes Age UK, ATD—All Together in Dignity—Fourth World, Amnesty International, Campaign for Disability Justice, Child Poverty Action Group, Defend Digital Me and Difference North East. I could go on: I have half a page, which I will spare the Committee from, listing organisations that have expressed concern. It is quite a roll call.

Governments can and will get things wrong. History tells us that if it tells us anything. In June 2024, a Guardian investigation revealed that a DWP algorithm had wrongly flagged 200,000 people for possible fraud and error; it found that two thirds of housing benefit claims marked as high risk in the previous three years were in fact legitimate, but thousands of UK households every month had their housing benefit claims wrongly investigated. Overall, about £4.4 million was wasted on officials carrying out checks that did not save any money. We know that more mistakes will happen, no matter how hard we try to avoid them. I therefore ask the Minister to support the insertion of new clause 14 as a small measure of defence against future institutional failings.

[Rebecca Smith]

As we have heard, Liberal Democrat new clause 14 would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included in the algorithmic transparency reporting standard. I have obviously just heard the comments of the hon. Member for Horsham, but I would be interested to know precisely what the Liberal Democrats are aiming to achieve with this new clause and how such reporting would better enable the Government to crack down on fraud and error. Is that the intention behind the new clause?

[Andrew Western]

I share the support expressed by the hon. Member for Horsham for the algorithmic transparency recording standard as a framework for capturing information about algorithmic tools, including AI systems, and ensuring that public sector bodies openly publish information about the algorithmic tools used in decision-making processes that affect members of the public. However, I do not think the new clause is a necessary addition to the Bill, and I will explain why.

First, all central Government Departments, including the DWP and the Cabinet Office, are already required to comply with the standard as appropriate. We are committed to ensuring that there is appropriate public scrutiny of algorithmic tools that have a significant influence on a decision-making process with public effect, or that directly interact with the public. We have followed and will continue to follow the guidance published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on this to ensure the necessary transparency and scrutiny.

Secondly, I remind the Committee that although the DWP and PSFA are improving their access to relevant data through the Bill, we are not introducing any new use of machine learning or automated decision making in the Bill measures. I can continue to assure the House that, as is the case now, a human will always be involved in decisions that affect benefit entitlement.

Thirdly, although I do not wish to labour the point yet again, I remind the Committee that the Bill introduces new and important safeguards, including reporting mechanisms and independent oversight in the Bill, demonstrating our commitment to transparency and ensuring that the powers will be used proportionately and effectively. The DWP takes data protection very seriously and will always comply with data protection law. Any information obtained will be kept confidential and secure, in line with GDPR.

[John Milne]

I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’”—(Rebecca Smith.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Last November, as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I asked the Secretary of State when we could expect to see a decision on compensation for WASPI women. She replied:

“There is lots of information to go through. We need to get it right but I want this resolved as soon as possible.”

I asked about a timescale and she said:

“If I gave you a date then I would have sorted it, and it needs to be sorted, but I will do it as soon as humanly possible.”

No one would have suspected that “sorting” the issue meant an outright refusal. So where did this shock handbrake turn of a decision come from? I suspect it has more to do with the Treasury than with any objective measure of fairness.

In justifying her decision, the Secretary of State made repeated reference to one particular statistic: the DWP survey from 2006 found that 90% of women understood that the pension age was rising. She repeated the 90% figure like a mantra in her presentation to the House and the media, but the survey was based on a tiny sample of perhaps 170 women who could not possibly be taken as fair representation of the entire female population.

Furthermore, the survey was contradicted by multiple other studies conducted both before and after. Research from the following year found that half of women whose pension age had in fact risen to between 60 and 65 still thought it stood at 60. On what grounds did the Secretary of State put so much faith in the 90% figure, rather than the 50%? None that I can see, except that it was cherry-picked to support the conclusion that she always wanted to reach in the first place. What is more, it is clear that the DWP itself attached far greater weight to a later survey. An internal memo from April 2007 described the research findings as “depressing reading”. It continued:

“we still have 50% ‘ignorance levels’ with three years to go. [The Ombudsman’s] first question will be what are you proposing to do about it?”

That turns out to have been a really prescient question.

To further justify their decision, the Government have argued that earlier warning letters would not have worked anyway, but writing letters is exactly how much of the Government communicate to this day. It is sheer nonsense to argue that the standard method of communication across all Departments would have been useless in this one circumstance of WASPI women.

I accept that there are financial pressures on the Government. They could have said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings, but we are not currently able to respond,” or “not able to meet the full levels suggested.” What is not reasonable is to undermine the ombudsman, which is a highly unusual and constitutionally worrying move, and to pick through the evidence to support the conclusion that they always wanted to find in the first place. Fundamentally, it was neither safe nor reasonable for the Secretary of State to rely so completely on the 90% figure, to the deliberate exclusion of multiple other statistics, which showed a much lower level of awareness. In my constituency, 5,000 women have been affected by this decision; many more of course have been affected nationwide. I call on the Government to respect the vital constitutional role of the ombudsman and think again.

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

John Milne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Smith]

Clause 94 states that any costs incurred by the Secretary of State in recovering an amount under clauses 71 to 80 or schedules 3ZA or 3ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 may be recovered as though they were recoverable under the same methods as the debt itself. Will it be done separately, and what might the cost to the Department be in putting that forward? Is there any limit to the costs that the Secretary of State can recoup in this way?

Clause 95 clarifies that provision does not require or authorise processing of information that contravenes data protection legislation, or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The final line states,

“references to giving a notice or other document…include sending the notice or document by post.”

This also came up in the debate on Tuesday, so I would like to get it on the record. I assume I know the answer, but can the Minister clarify whether this includes electronic methods of communication also, such as email? If I may ask this, as I am intrigued, then why does sending by post need separate legislation? We have debated the subject twice now, and the answer is probably really straightforward, but as it is set out on its own line, it might be a nice idea to find out why it has to be legislated for. I ask that purely because I am nosy and would like to know.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Clause 84 states that costs incurred by the Secretary of State in taking recovery actions can be themselves recovered. Will the Minister clarify what happens in a case where the claimant is found to be not guilty? What happens to the costs then? Are they borne by the bank, the DWP or the claimant? Will he also clarify how the cost of the general trawl through all the accounts is apportioned?

Secondly, to go back to the issue of fraud versus error, and how they seem to be treated as pretty much the same throughout the Bill, will the Minister clarify whether, where it is the DWP’s error, a claimant would still end up paying the administrative charge? If that is the case, it seems quite unreasonable, so it would be great if the Minister could clarify those points.

[Andrew Western]

I am a little perplexed by the suggestion that somebody would be found not guilty or be charged. We are talking about debt recovery, so it is a slightly separate matter. It is not a criminal issue; it is a question of how, through civil powers, we can reclaim funding, so I am not sure that those questions arise. But if the hon. Member for Horsham wants to intervene on that, he is welcome to.

On the question of whether fraud and error are distinguishable in the reclamation of debt, the answer is no. They are treated in the same way, because this is about situations in which it has already been established that somebody owes us a recoverable amount and they have repeatedly refused to engage. I refer to my earlier comments about the number of times we would have reached out to somebody to get them to engage with the process. Parliament has previously resolved that overpayments of certain types of benefits are recoverable, and the Bill does not change that.

On the question about savings and so on, we would be able to recover all reasonable costs. There is no particular limit on what we can recover, and it is treated on the same terms as debt.

On the question of why we need to make a distinction for email, this is one of those situations in which I am grateful that I can sometimes reach out for answers. It goes back to the Interpretation Act 1978; we did not have email back then, so we need to set out separately, on a legal and technical basis, that post is specifically allowed, given provisions elsewhere. Yes, digital is still permissible, but we need to state specifically that post is acceptable as well.

[John Milne]

I used the word guilt, but can we forget that? I am referring to a case in which a claimant was investigated, so costs were incurred, but they were found not to be at fault, rather than guilty.

[Andrew Western]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to situations in which the court determines that the debt is not recoverable. I imagine that at that point we would bear the cost ourselves; it would not be recoverable from the individual. There is clearly some risk for us in that, as is perfectly usual, but by the point at which we decided to take somebody to court we would be able to demonstrate that a significant amount of effort had gone into attempting, through other mechanisms, to make them pay back what they owed the Department, so I hope we would have a very high success rate in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96

Offences: non-benefit payments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

John Milne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. We have touched previously on having an independent overview of the activities that will take place under the Bill, and this is another opportunity to have the checks and balances I have alluded to on a number of occasions. Of course, all Members in the room are reasonable people, but we see in world politics what happens when people are unreasonable. Given that the United Kingdom’s constitution is unwritten, beginning to build those checks and balances into legislation is important. Amendment 37 would hardwire them into the Bill, and I ask that the Minister give it serious consideration. I have heard hints that it may be taken into account in one way or the other when the Bill goes to the other place, but I would welcome some reassurance, if possible, that that is the case.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, the amendment is about checks and balances. We appreciate that the Bill has been introduced in the context of the Government’s desire to cut the benefits bill, but the Treasury deeming something to be financially necessary does not necessarily make it right.

The percentage lost to fraud and error is relatively modest, but of course the sums are huge because the overall number is huge. We need to remember that these measures will not get anywhere near recovering all that money, so the question is: is the action proportionate, considering the sacrifice we are making in terms of civil liberties? It is vital that we get the best value from public money, but the amount expected to be recovered is just 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error of £10 billion, and just a quarter of what is lost to official error at the Department for Work and Pensions.

As drafted, the clause empowers the Minister to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the Secretary of State’s function under schedule 3B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. There is no external oversight, and that undermines the credibility of the role. Our amendment states:

“Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons”,

which means

“a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

Without proper scrutiny, the role’s independence is undermined, potentially damaging trust in the process.

The Committee previously heard evidence from Dr Kassem of Aston University, who stated:

“I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.” ––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 13, Q15.]

A board would ensure that the appointment is truly independent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We therefore propose that the Minister must consult the relevant House of Commons Committee before making such an appointment. That simple steps would ensure genuine independence and parliamentary scrutiny, and would strengthen transparency and public confidence.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Western. As we have just heard, Liberal Democrat amendments 37 to 42 would mean that, before appointing an independent person, the Minister had to consult a Committee of the House of Commons nominated by Mr Speaker. Amendments 38 to 42 seek to replace an independent person with an independent board, and therefore to allow the Secretary of State to appoint persons to, and confer functions upon, the board.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. Member for Torbay. What greater independence do the Liberal Democrats think will be gained by changing the requirement, given that both the independent board and the independent person would be appointed by the Secretary of State? What practical difference will the amendments make to improve the review process and ensure that it is high quality?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to catch my eye to speak, and to refrain from using the word “you”, which refers to me as opposed to the Minister.

[John Milne]

My colleague has just partially asked my question. While we broadly welcome the clause, we are concerned by the absence of the code of practice. Could the Minister give any indication of the kind of guidance that it might contain? Also, at what stage of the parliamentary process will there be scrutiny of it, given that it will not be during this Committee?

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I want to raise the comments made by the Information Commissioner in relation to the Bill and the updates to the previous Government’s proposals. I understood that they were more content with this Bill than the previous Bill. They were pleased that it brought data protection more tightly within the measures, and that it talked about data protection in a much more consistent way with the law. They said that the Bill more tightly scopes the types of information that can and cannot be shared. I understand that our debate on clause 85 covered some of those improvements.

However, at the end of their comments, the Information Commissioner talked about the review process, and said very clearly that they would like to explore with the Government the role that the Information Commissioner’s Office can play in assisting with the review process. This clause does not set out the different offices and people with whom the independent reviewer needs to liaise in preparing their report. I wondered whether Ministers could comment on their thoughts surrounding that process, and consider setting out in the code of practice or further guidance how the independent reviewer might engage properly with data protection in their review.