Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

Interaction with other public authorities etc

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).

Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 97, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121.

[Andrew Western]

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services, eroding trust and harming innocent people. The Bill introduces new powers to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside of the tax and social security system, using its expertise to act on behalf of other parts of Government.

The Bill also contains new powers for the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle fraud and error within the social security system, providing much-needed modernisation for our defences. At the same time, it includes significant safeguards, including new independent oversight to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. As we now reach the final stages of the Bill, I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible, so that we can realise the delivery of the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government are grateful for the scrutiny of this Bill; improvements have been made as a result. However, we cannot accept amendments that undermine how the powers will operate, so I urge the House to support the Government’s alternative proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective.

This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill.

I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals.

Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities.

We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness.

As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that

“This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”,

but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.

In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted.

Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not easy to follow that excellent speech. I really appreciate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) reading out the names of people who have been failed by the system that was meant to support them—and we should remember that the system is what failed them. As he said, in a number of cases they were incredibly strong people who had fought through adversity but were then failed by the system. A significant number of disabled people have had to fight for so much of what they have. They have had to fight every day just to manage to get to work or get to the shop. They have had to fight for so much, and the system that is meant to support them should not then be another battleground.

I want to talk about a number of different things in the Bill, but I will start with the fact that this is not a happy Bill and the SNP does not support it. We are unhappy with a significant proportion of the Bill’s direction of travel, such as on the eligibility verification, not least because of the potential future risks. I said to the Conservatives when they were in government, and I will say again now that the Labour party is in government, that you will not be in government for ever. At some point, somebody else will be in government, and if it is somebody who shares the authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, I am not sure that I want them to have access to everybody’s bank accounts.

We need to look at the proportionality of accessing universal credit claimants’ bank accounts to see if they are committing fraud. I wonder what proportion of universal credit claimants defraud the system, compared with the proportion of billionaires who defraud His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and do not pay the level of tax that they should be paying. I do not think it is proportionate for us to say that universal credit claimants need to have their bank accounts looked at because they are likely to commit fraud, whereas people who earn millions and millions of pounds and store it in offshore trusts do not have exactly the same constraints put on all the many bank accounts that they may have.

It is disproportionate for us to assume that social security claimants are more likely to defraud the system than anyone else, especially given that we have significant levels of proof that other people do defraud the system and that a significant number of the errors made—through overpayments, for example—are made by DWP itself, rather than by the claimants. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) talked about elements of Lords amendment 43 and vulnerable individuals who may be disadvantaged. If we could trust that DWP never or very rarely makes mistakes, I could understand the Government putting forward this Bill. From the written-down facts in coroner’s reports, and from all our constituency casework, we know that DWP makes mistakes. I am not blaming individuals at DWP for making those mistakes; there are sometimes systemic failures and sometimes individual failures. Mistakes are made at DWP, and adding both another layer of places where it can make mistakes and a further ability to sanction people—for example, by taking their car away or looking at their bank accounts—will not be proportionate until DWP is much less likely to make mistakes and to greatly overpay carers, for example, and then attempt to claw back the money. The Government need to get the Department in order before taking action against individuals. I understand that there are people who defraud the system—I am not doubting for a second that that is the case—but, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, putting the word “error” first might have been helpful, given that a significant proportion of the money that is overpaid is due to error.

I turn to the costs and savings mentioned in Lords amendment 43, on how much it costs to recoup money and to undertake an investigation in order to see whether somebody is defrauding the system. We know that a school meal debt system was set up, and we have had bailiffs at people’s doors looking for under £10 of school meal debt. Sending a bailiff to somebody’s door for under £10 involves a disproportionate cost, and I hope that everybody in this room thinks that we should not be spending so much money, and upsetting somebody’s life that much, for the sake of £10. If a person cannot afford to pay £10 of school meal debt, they have pretty significant problems, and sending a bailiff to their door is not going to help. We only know about some of these bailiff situations because they have been brought to MPs, or because they have been reported by various organisations. Aberlour Children’s Charity has done a huge amount of amazing work on public sector debt and some of the methods that are used to recoup that money. The Government should have to report whether it costs a disproportionate amount for us to ensure that we are not paying out a very small amount. I think it is completely reasonable for that question to be asked.

I think it is completely reasonable as well—the hon. Member for Poole talked about this—to think about vulnerable groups and whether they are overly disadvantaged by the system being put in place. Will people with learning difficulties, specific mental conditions and physical disabilities, and those from certain minority communities that are already marginalised, for example Gypsy Travellers, be specifically disadvantaged by the changes? All Lords amendment 43 asks is for reporting to ensure that those vulnerabilities, if there is an entrenchment of inequality and an increase in the disadvantage faced by people, are reported on, so we aware of it and there is transparency, and so we can see that it is creating a significant additional disadvantage on an already vulnerable and marginalised community. I would therefore really appreciate it if the Government agreed, rather than disagreed, with Lords amendment 43.

Finally on Lords amendment 43, the amount of money proposed to be saved by the Bill in its entirety—the total amount of savings—is, I understand, £1.5 billion. Governments of all colours are monumentally bad at reporting back on how much savings have been achieved by any of the measures they put in place on just about anything. Unless a tax is hypothecated, for example, we do not see exactly how much money is saved or exactly how much money is spent, and whether it delivered what was promised by the Government. Again, it is Governments of all colours who do not do post-implementation reviews in the right amount of time, and when there is a change of Government they sometimes just forget that post-implementation reviews exist. We will not know with any level of accuracy, unless we get proper reports on costs and savings, exactly how much money is saved and whether the Government have met their target or expected amount of £1.5 billion, so I have significant concerns.

I appreciate the Minister’s answer to me on Lords amendment 84. I had not understood what he had said originally on his position on Lords amendment 84 and the answer he gave me in response did clarify his position. I do not agree with his position, but I now understand why the Government hold that position. I still think it would be important to ensure there are things in place other than the EVM. I understand the Government want a little bit more flexibility and that they are saying they have to look at all the other information they hold. It is possible that the DWP may not hold any more information or may hold very little more information. Therefore, the decision to initiate a fraud investigation could be taken almost entirely, if not completely entirely, on the EVM. That is why I still disagree with the Minister’s position.

I would like a requirement for the DWP to have more than just that one piece of information. My understanding is that that was what Lords amendment 84 intended to do in the first place, but I appreciate that other amendments in lieu have been tabled by the Government to provide a little more clarity on what is expected. I would expect them to look at all the information provided, as the Minister said. I am just concerned that they may not hold lots of information, and a requirement to look at all the information they hold when they only hold one piece of information gets us back to the situation we were in at the beginning, where it could hinge on one thing rather than looking at a wider suite of things.

Generally speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will sit down in just a moment—the SNP is not in favour of the Bill. We have significant concerns. If the Minister, when he responds, confirmed that the Government will do as much as they can on transparency, and that they will report back on the level of costs and savings that are created by the Bill, that would give me a measure of comfort. I still will not support the Bill, and I might still vote against some of the amendments tabled today, but I think it would make Members from across the House a bit more comfortable to have a better understanding of what is happening and whether the Bill is working as the Government intend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[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.