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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for South West Devon in tabling the new clause—that is, to take fraud against the public sector seriously—but the Government plan to resist it, because we believe that the proposals are already covered and that it could lead to unintended consequences that do the opposite of what she wants.

As the hon. Member said, new clause 2 would create a new offence of fraud against a public authority. We believe that that could have a detrimental effect and is unnecessary, because fraud is already an offence, and this is clearly defined in clause 70 as offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. The Bill uses those offences—they do not need to be written into it to have effect—and we have given assurances on that during a previous debate.

Consequently, there does not need to be a specific fraud offence for public authorities. Assisting and encouraging fraud against a public authority, as is mentioned in the new clause, is already an offence. The offences of “encouraging or assisting”, as set out in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, apply to fraud offences as they do to other crimes. Again, that does not need to be written into the Bill to have effect.

The Public Sector Fraud Authority will be able to investigate cases in which it appears that someone has encouraged someone else to commit fraud. If we discover encouragement, that would likely form part of the PSFA’s investigation into a fraud case, and the Crown Prosecution Service could pursue that offence using the evidence collected. Whether action can be taken will depend on the facts of the case, the evidence available and whether the necessary standard of proof can be met.

Crucially, new clause 2 would reduce the maximum sentence available for Fraud Act and conspiracy offences from 10 years to seven years, for fraud against public authorities only.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?

[Georgia Gould]

As I set out, these measures are already covered, and the proposals would potentially reduce sentences from 10 years to seven years. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want those who defraud the public sector to get lower sentences than those who would defraud the private sector.

[Mike Wood]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My mother is a WASPI woman and, as fortune would have it, today is her birthday. It would be wonderful if the Minister could give her the birthday present of changing the Government’s position on this issue.

The arguments have been well rehearsed and, indeed, the facts are clear thanks to the ombudsman’s report. Published in March 2024, it found that the DWP failed these women. The communication of changes to the state pension age was not just inadequate: it was negligent. Women were left in the dark, unable to make informed decisions about their financial futures. The impact of the failure has been devastating. Lives have been upended and plans have been torn apart. Women who worked hard, contributed to society and looked forward to a well-earned retirement were instead met with stress, anxiety, uncertainty and the harsh reality of financial insecurity.

The Government have rightly apologised, but I say gently to the Minister that it is somewhat intellectually incoherent to apologise but then also offer reasons—such as claiming that 90% of women knew—as to why compensation should not be paid. If they believe that, what are they apologising for?

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a very happy birthday. It is a great date of birth to share.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2007, and that some women had suffered a loss as a result of that maladministration. The Government accept that there was maladministration. The ombudsman has left it to Parliament to decide how to make sure that those who suffered loss get properly recompensed. What would it say about us as a Parliament if we decide that yes, the maladministration is there and the loss is there but, frankly, we are not going to do anything about it?

[Mr Brash]

I agree with the hon. Member, who makes the interesting point that it is down to Parliament, rather than Ministers, because we are talking about the parliamentary ombudsman. I have to point out, though, that it would have been helpful if the ombudsman’s report had not been kicked into the long grass by the previous Administration.

I continue to believe that options were available to Ministers other than simply saying no. Other options include looking at those most in need—we have already heard about those WASPI women who are beneath the poverty line; or looking at staged or interim payments based on age; or just engaging in dialogue about the ombudsman’s findings at all. I urge Ministers to consider those options.

Rather than rehearse arguments that have been made many times, I want to talk more broadly about the impact of this issue on our politics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned. We cannot leverage votes on an issue when in opposition, only to turn around and say no when we are in government, because that risks disenfranchising our voters. Recent history tells us that disenfranchisement does not lead voters to vote for no one. It leads to them voting for anyone. This country faces that danger right now, in terms of the level of trust in politics. Voters’ trust is rightly hard won, but very easily lost.

During the general election campaign, on countless doorsteps and in numerous emails and conversations, I was challenged by Hartlepool voters on the WASPI issue. I pledged my support to every single one of them. I stood by them as they campaigned and told them that if I became their Member of Parliament, I would always stand up for them. I will not renege on that promise. I remember being joined on one doorstep by a senior member of the then shadow Cabinet. The voter, fixing the shadow Minister with a stare, gestured to me and said, “But how can we trust him?” The reply came from the shadow Minister, “Well, Jonathan is Hartlepool first, country second and party third.” I am happy to say that that remains the case.

I am not here to bash my party or my Government. Politics is not binary. Although many will disagree, I believe that standing up and saying when you think something is wrong is a profound act of loyalty to my party. It is my duty to stand up for WASPI women. That is the promise I made to them and, no matter the consequence, that will never change.

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

Amendments 48 and 22 seek to limit the amount that can be deducted via a direct deduction order in any month to 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period in non-fraud cases, and to set no limit in cases where the Department considers it more likely than not that the debt is the result of fraud.

The hon. Member for South West Devon will know I have sympathy with the idea of quickly collecting debts that arise due to fraud, but the measures in the Bill already allow the Department to collect higher amounts through a lump sum deduction order, rather than through a regular deduction order. This important flexibility in the application of these powers will allow us to seek a higher level of deductions. A lump sum deduction order can also be followed with a regular deduction order, if deemed appropriate.

The Bill currently states that, where recovery is made under a regular deduction order, the deduction must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers, such as the direct earnings attachment power and the Child Maintenance Service’s deduction from earnings order power.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood, as the drafting obviously relates to the parallel provisions we debated in clause 22. My understanding is that, as currently drafted, if the Minister or the Public Sector Fraud Authority is satisfied that a loss is the result of fraud, they can impose a lump sum deduction up to 100% of the credited amount in an account. However, if they were to use a regular deduction order, each sum can be only 40%. Is there any reason, in principle or for welfare, why it is okay to take 100% of someone’s account on day one but not okay to take 50% today and 50% the following month?

[Andrew Western]

Put simply, my understanding is that if an individual debtor has sufficient money in their account to pay 100% on day one without financial hardship, we will apply that power. Where that is not possible—for example, if a person’s debt exceeds their means to repay it in one go—we will look at a regular deduction order. It is on that basis that we came to the 40% figure, which is based on the income going into an account each month.

We have set the cap to ensure that ongoing living costs can still be met on a month-by-month basis. It may not be that the figure used is 40%. We are simply seeking to give ourselves flexibility up to that amount. We are not saying that we will never recover more than that. If someone has £10 million in a bank account and owes the Department £1 million, it is reasonable to assume it will not cause them undue hardship to recover all of it in one go through a lump sum deduction.

The two powers are complementary but separate—one deals with ongoing recovery from a person who does not have sufficient means for recovery in one go, and the other deals with people who have savings or means significant enough to do just that. I hope that answers the question. I am happy to take another intervention if not.

The Bill currently states that when a recovery is made under a regular deduction order, deductions must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period—month by month is the obvious example. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers. The Department intends to set lower rates for regular deductions in non-fraud cases, allowing those rates to remain in line with existing recovery powers. Paragraph 24 of proposed new schedule 3ZA to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 therefore makes provision for regulations to be brought forward to set a maximum percentage deduction that is less than 40% in these cases.

[Mike Wood]

It sounds as though the Minister is speaking to amendment 22, which would restrict his power to set a lower amount to non-fraud cases. If we agree that lower limits should apply only in cases that do not involve fraud, can we just accept the amendment?

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

It is incredibly important to reiterate for anybody who may be watching our proceedings that the Government will not be going through anybody’s bank accounts. We will be asking banks and financial institutions to do that, and to share information with us only where there is a potential breach of eligibility verification. The information that is shared with us will be specifically related to identifying the bank account and the potential breach of eligibility. It will not be, for instance, special category data or transactional data.

To return to my point about the use of AI and automated decision making, when a flag comes back on the eligibility verification measure, a potential breach of eligibility will immediately be passed to a human investigator to take that forward. It will not at any point trigger a penalty or a prosecution for fraud without a human intervening and, as they do at present, establishing that there is potentially fraudulent activity or, indeed, an error that warrants a reclamation of overpayment.

Amendment 30 seeks to stop the DWP from being able to use the eligibility verification power in respect of pension credit. We have had quite the debate about that already, and the hon. Member for South West Devon made many of the points that I would have made.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

According to the House of Commons Library, one of the biggest factors in that 10% of pension credit expenditure that is lost to fraud and error is payments to people who are abroad. How will the measures on eligibility verification help to identify people who do not actually live in the country so would not be eligible for pension credit?

[Andrew Western]

I am grateful beyond belief to the hon. Gentleman, because he highlights why this provision is so important. More than 50% of the fraud and error that we see in pension credit comes from two principle sources, which the eligibility verification measure specifically seeks to address. One is the issue of capital fraud, where there is a relatively easy indicator—for example, in respect of universal credit, was the individual in receipt of capital in their account of more than £16,000?

The provision also has the benefit of helping us to establish when somebody has been out of the country for longer than their benefit entitles them to be. For instance, it would provide a flag on an account when somebody’s bank account suggested they had been making purchases abroad and so on. We would not receive the transactional data or know specifically where the purchases were made—or, indeed, whether it was cheesecake or some other item—but it would give us specifically the date that somebody left the country, and thereby show whether they were in breach of the length of time they are allowed to be away. This is not, then, just a tool to deal with capital fraud, although that is the most straightforward example to articulate and, therefore, the one I use most readily; it will also be useful to identify people who have been abroad for longer than their eligibility suggests they should be allowed to be while continuing to receive benefits.

It is important to recognise—I touched on this when I set out the human safeguard that is in place—that a flag would not necessarily mean that someone has done anything wrong, or that they are no longer entitled to benefits. On capital fraud, it might be because someone has received, perfectly legitimately, a Government compensation payment, such as for infected blood, which would be out of scope. That is why a human would check that. The person would therefore not lose benefits or receive an overpayment.

On someone being out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be—if they have been taken ill, or if there has been an environmental catastrophe, humanitarian disaster or some such, that means they are unable to leave the country they are in—again, that would be investigated. The person would not face action as a result. I hope I have set out exactly how the eligibility verification measure is useful not only for capital fraud, but for allowing us to notice and receive indications about when someone has been out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be while still receiving benefits.

As I said, on amendment 30, the hon. Member for South West Devon touched on many of the comments that I would have made about why pension credit is included. The change would not explicitly exclude pension credit, as with the state pension, because the legislation still enables Ministers to lay regulations for its inclusion at a future date. My intention, however, is to use the power for pension credit payments from the outset, because unfortunately the rising trend in overpayments of pension credits demonstrates that pension-age benefits are not immune from fraud and error.

In 2023-24, £520 million in pension credit was overpaid, and pension credit has one of the highest rates of capital fraud and error, with £198 million lost in 2023-24 alone. The rate of fraud in pension credit increased by more than 50% in 2023-24, as against the previous year, so we have a clear problem. The under-declaration of financial assets and claimants staying abroad for a longer period than is allowed remain the two main causes of pension credit overpayments in ’23-24. As I said previously, they accounted for more than 50% of all overpayments.

Equally, it is important to ensure that people receive the right payments. The eligibility verification measure is not about removing pension credit payments from anyone; it is about confirming that claimants meet the conditions of entitlement. The measure also enables the Department to help to prevent individuals from unknowingly accruing overpayments, pension credits or any other benefit in scope, which could lead to financial stress if later they need to repay money they were not entitled to.

Overall, the measure and the inclusion of pension credit will help the DWP to ensure that public funds are used responsibly while maintaining confidence in the benefit system. On that basis, I will resist amendment 30.

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from John Smart, formerly partner for forensics at Ernst & Young, who now sits on the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s advisory panel. We have until 2.50 pm.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q At the heart of this Bill is the establishment of the PSFA as a separate body outside the Cabinet Office. What do you see as the practical benefits that that move will bring? How will you better be able to serve the public sector?

John Smart: I think being fully independent would probably be helpful, although I suspect that the realistic impact of that will be more theoretical rather than practical in the short term. Maybe, in the longer term, a fully independent, stand-alone organisation would be much more helpful.

[Mike Wood]

Q How would you see that independence interacting with the decision-making processes in the Bill, which largely rely on ministerial or departmental decisions in terms of the orders for information?

John Smart: That needs to be determined in terms of the overall governance structure of the organisation, as and when it is set up, because it would clearly need to have an independent board, and some of the oversight powers proposed in the Bill would need to be independent of the management of that business. I think it would require quite a lot of thought around the overall governance structure, the way it operates and the way that the day-to-day management of the business is independent of the oversight powers.

[Mike Wood]

Q This is very much a Bill of two halves, and many of the powers that will be given to the PSFA are equivalent to those that are being given to DWP investigators. The obvious difference is the use of reasonable force. Do you think that the nature of PSFA investigations means that that power will not really be required, or do you think that your powers should also include reasonable force?

John Smart: As you say, the nature of the investigations that will be carried out by the PSFA will be quite different from those being carried out by the DWP. Certainly, the proposal in the Bill is that investigations that require some form of search warrant will be carried out with a police officer present, and therefore the powers that are being given to DWP in relation to this Bill will already sit with the police that will accompany any investigators that are doing work on behalf of the PSFA. That is my understanding.

[Mike Wood]

Q For a lot of the provisions in the Bill, those in receipt of orders potentially have a very short timeframe to comply with the demands.

John Smart: Yes.

[Mike Wood]

Based on your experience with the PSFA so far, is that consistent with the length of time that, in most cases, it takes such organisations to reply to requests for information?

John Smart: The consistency question is an interesting one. I think a lot of those powers are likely to be applied specifically in relation to banks and telecoms companies. They already have procedures in place to respond to requests for information, and therefore, in the majority of cases, my suspicion is that those short timeframes will be consistent with what they normally deal with, so there will not be a big onus on them to change the way they normally operate.

[Mike Wood]

Q The provisions of the Bill are not confined to financial institutions, are they?

John Smart: They are not, no. I do not know which institutions are likely to be required to provide information. There will be individuals and institutions. Other institutions might find it more difficult, but there is an appeals process, which they can apply to use, in relation to provision of information. If it is unreasonably onerous, I suspect it will mean that the timescale will be varied.

[Mike Wood]

Q The legislation sets out a specific period of time for a lot of those powers, so would it be logical to assume that for some smaller businesses, it may take longer to comply than for multinational banks that are doing it regularly?

John Smart: That is true. I have spent 35 years investigating fraud, and the challenge is that there is a need to be reasonably speedy in doing those investigations because, as we heard earlier, any recoveries are going to be much reduced if there is a significant delay in carrying out the investigation and applying for either criminal or civil proceedings to take place. Therefore, speed is important in any investigation. Otherwise, you are spending a lot of time and effort without getting the result you need.

[Mike Wood]

Q Obviously, you have not been involved in such direct investigations, but just to give us some idea of the quantum we are talking about, what period of time do you think would count as reasonably speedy, so that it would not endanger an investigation? Are we talking about days, weeks or months?

John Smart: I think weeks is reasonable. A small number of weeks is a reasonable number to look for, rather than days or months. Months is far too long, and days is probably a little too short in relation to the ability of organisations to respond.

[Andrew Western]

Q I have a very general question to open with. You will be more aware than I am of the changing nature of fraud and the increasing sophistication that we see from perpetrators. Do you agree, in general, that the DWP’s powers would need to be modernised in order to cope with that shift? Also, what are your views on the general provisions within the Bill, where it pertains to the DWP, to detect and prevent fraud?

John Smart: At the risk of echoing what has been said before, I think it is critical that we modernise the approach to fraud, and the Bill is a good step towards that modernisation. The critical part of a lot of investigations now—and of identifying, preventing and detecting fraud—is the use of data. Getting that data and information quickly and effectively is critical. I think the Bill will go a long way towards speeding up and broadening the available information that can be used to prevent, detect and prosecute fraud. That is a really valuable thing that we should be pushing for, because relying on pieces of paper to seek information from organisations is crazy in this day and age, when you can do it electronically and get an answer relatively quickly. If you are turning up with a piece of paper, it can take weeks or months.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Eric Leenders and Daniel Cichocki, both from UK Finance. We have until 3.10 pm.

[Mike Wood]

Q What consultation has there been with industry to make sure that the eligibility verification measures are workable and that your members will know what is required of them?

Daniel Cichocki: A number of conversations with the industry have taken place since the measure was announced. We have been very clear since the announcement was made that we are supportive of the efforts to tackle fraud and error in the public sector. We recognise the scale of the challenge that the Government face, and as a private sector we see clearly the damage fraud does to both the public and the private sectors. We are very supportive of the objectives of the Bill. As you say, the key thing for us as a sector that is heavily regulated, both from a vulnerable customer treatment stance—my colleague Eric Leenders is best placed to talk about that—and a financial crime compliance perspective, is that more detail on the specifics of how the measure will work is still to emerge through the code of practice, but extensive conversations about that are under way.

From the banking industry perspective, we are keen to ensure that the compliance requirements for banks are clear in terms of what information is required. We hope to see in the code of practice, as soon as is practical, details of the specific criteria against which the Government will mandate banks to perform checks under the measure.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do banks have any sense of how many information notices and other applications they are likely to receive? Are there any expectations regarding the scale of the undertaking?

Daniel Cichocki: We are awaiting more detail. We have high-level indicators that the Government are likely to use the measure to require banks to perform checks against, which gives us some sense of the scale. Our initial assessment is that it is likely to be significant, but the key thing for us is to have more details of the criteria that the Government will require us to check against under the measure.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do you have any idea what the additional man hours or potential cost burden could be for a typical bank in a typical year?

Daniel Cichocki: It is quite difficult at this stage to perform that level of assessment, partly because so much detail of the measure will be set out in the code of practice. We are obviously very keen to ensure that the expectations of the industry in complying with the new requirement are proportionate, but that is difficult to assess in detail before we have seen the detail of the code of practice. Much will depend on the mechanism through which banks will be required to share the information, the frequency of the information notices, whether the criteria we are required to run the checks against change over time and other factors that will influence how much capacity is required from the banking sector. As I say, at this stage it is challenging to do a detailed assessment.

[Mike Wood]

Q Presumably you agree with the previous witness that, in general, banks are reasonably well adapted to responding to such notices. Do you think that 10 days is reasonable for them?

Daniel Cichocki: Certainly. The banks share very significant amounts of information with Government Departments and law enforcement to ensure compliance with measures to tackle economic crime. We take that very seriously. We also continue to share extensive information with the Director of Public Prosecutions where there is suspicion of fraud. There is certainly an existing set-up to respond to information requests.

There is a difference with this particular measure, though, and we are keen for it be considered. This request is for information to tackle both fraud and error. A lot of the information sharing that we as an industry currently do with elements of law enforcement is very much focused on suspected fraud, economic crime and serious and organised crime. This is a slightly broader measure, so we are keen to see in the code of practice a very clear set of requirements for banks to comply with. The infrastructure is certainly there.

[Mike Wood]

Q Is there any measure of how long it currently takes banks to respond to information requests from Government, such as those from HMRC, under existing powers?

Daniel Cichocki: A variety of powers exist to date. Some have time measures built in for compliance with them and some are voluntary. I think you have to ensure that this particular power is balanced against all the information sharing that the industry is currently required to do with both Government and law enforcement. For example, it must be balanced against the voluntary sharing that the industry is doing, particularly with law enforcement. Certainly, those of us working in economic crime are primarily focused on how we can work with Government and law enforcement to tackle serious and organised crime. Striking the balance between the additional requirements under this power and that effort is an area of focus on which we have also been engaged with the Government.

[Mike Wood]

Q Are there any other areas where you think the Bill could approach things differently? Is anything missing that you think should be in the Bill?

Daniel Cichocki: Given that the eligibility verification measure is one of the more extensive powers in the Bill, we think that it may be appropriate to require the Minister to attest that its use is proportionate, as is required with the other measures in the Bill. That is just because of that particular power’s scale in requiring banks to share information on both potential fraud and potential error. As it includes the sharing of information of customers who may not be suspected of any crime whatsoever, we think that it would be helpful if the Government were to articulate that their use of the measure is proportionate, as is the case with the others.

It would also be helpful if the Bill were to replicate the very effective Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 exemption, which exists within the eligibility verification measure, in the other measures across parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. That is simply because we do not think that it is necessarily proportionate or helpful for banks to be considering, in complying with legislation, whether they should also be undertaking a suspicious activity report for the authorities. One of the constructive conversations that we have been having with Government is how we delineate our responsibilities to comply with this legislation and our responsibilities to comply with financial crime measures. We will be writing on this in more detail, but we suggest that the exemption under the eligibility verification measure, which is very helpful, should be replicated in other elements of the Bill.

[Andrew Western]

Q Thank you for joining us today, and for the engagement that we have had so far; it has been incredibly helpful and you have my assurance that it will continue. I would like to test the point that you have just set out on the POCA measure within EVM, as well as rolling that out more broadly. Clearly we want to ensure that the burdens on banks that arise as a result of the EVM measure, and any of the other measures, interplay in an acceptable manner with the broad range of duties that fall upon you, including the consumer duty. In the interest of transparency, could you set out for the Committee your other concerns regarding potential conflicts if we do not get things right as we construct the code of practice?

Daniel Cichocki: We are making this suggestion because under the Bill banks responding to an information request or a direct deduction order, would have to consider whether there is some indication of financial crime that under POCA requires them to make a suspicious activity report. We think it is simpler to remove that requirement, not least because where there is a requirement to make a suspicious activity report there is a requirement to notify the authorities; clearly, there is already a notification to the authorities when complying with the measure. Removing that requirement would avoid the risk that banks must consider not only how to respond to the measure but whether they are required to treat that individual account as potentially fraudulent. We are trying to manage risk out of the system more broadly with financial crime compliance, so we think it is much more proportionate and effective to simply apply the same exemption across all the measures in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Mike Wood]

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

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

[Mike Wood]

Q What recourse would individuals have who are adversely affected, whether it is by machine-made decision making or even human decision making?

Ellen Lefley: That is where it gets quite tricky, because of course the first barrier would be even knowing that you have been subject to any kind of algorithmic decision making or algorithmic-assisted decision making. If you have been subject to a completely automated decision, the new data Bill that is coming through will enable you to make representations and to request human intervention after the fact. But if algorithms are assisting a human decision-making process, there is no right to be notified, let alone to complain.

The position of someone who has been subject to one of these decision-making processes also needs to be considered in a very realistic way. The motivation, empowerment, means and brain space to complain in such circumstances cannot always be relied on. Justice is clear that while access to redress is always important, preventing unfair and discriminatory decision making always needs to be the priority.

[Mike Wood]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

There being no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Mark Cheeseman OBE gave evidence.

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Mark Cheeseman OBE, chief executive of the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We have until 3.50 pm.

[Mike Wood]

Q I want to go back to a question that I asked Mr Smart earlier. One of the main measures in the Bill is to move the PSFA from the Cabinet Office to make it an independent body. What do you see as the practical benefits? How will the public sector benefit from that new status?

Mark Cheeseman: The practical benefit to consider is that the place from where these powers are operated will have some degree of independence and separation from Ministers. That is a practice you would see in other circumstances as well, so it may give Parliament some assurance. That is balanced up against the cost.

[Mike Wood]

Q That independence is balanced with many of the provisions in the Bill, particularly around the information notices and the other Cabinet Office parts of the Bill, which come down to decision making by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. How does the independence of the PSFA interrelate with the personal sign-offs required by a specific Minister?

Mark Cheeseman: In the Bill, the Minister passes the powers to authorised officers. The authorised officers could be in that statutory body, and the authorised officers would be the ones who use the powers to do that. Those authorised officers would be people who have experience working in fraud and are part of the Government counter-fraud profession.

[Mike Wood]

Q The provisions in the Bill are fairly vague about who can exercise those powers directly. Compared with the investigatory powers created and set out in other legislation, should we be a bit more specific about what that experience, those qualifications or that seniority looks like?

Mark Cheeseman: The Bill currently lays it to the authorised officers. One of the transformations that has been going on in Government is the professionalisation of counter-fraud work. We now have a counter-fraud profession. There are now professional standards where, a while back, there were not, for a lot of investigations in the public sector. There are professional standards and practices, and a code of ethics for people who work in the sector. That sets a standard for the knowledge, skills and experience that the authorised officers exercising the powers would have. As to what level they are, that aligns with current practice and what you would see across the public sector.

[Mike Wood]

Q Is there a reason why it is not possible to refer to those standards in the legislation, if that is the accepted norm?

Mark Cheeseman: I am not sure whether one would refer to it in the legislation. It could be in the code of practice, and aspects like that.

[Mike Wood]

Q How close do you feel we are to having at least an idea of what a code of practice would look like, based on the PSFA’s experience in its current form?

Mark Cheeseman: The Public Sector Fraud Authority has been created by bringing together people from other spaces. These powers are designed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We heard from Richard Las earlier about the powers that HMRC uses to take action on suspected fraud where it has reasonable cause to do so. It is some of those experts who have come and developed these powers. I feel that that capability will come into the organisation, through which the organisation will be able to use the powers.

[Mike Wood]

Q For those of us who have been asked to make a decision on whether the powers in the legislation before us are reasonable and proportionate, as we have heard from one witness after another today, it is very difficult to make that decision without knowing how they will be carried out in practice. That obviously means knowing what will be in such a code.

Mark Cheeseman: Absolutely. The code of practice will be developed alongside the legislation, as is standard practice.

[Mike Wood]

We saw this in other legislation under the previous Government. It is not uncommon for Ministers to give an undertaking that at least a draft code might be published before legislation returns to Parliament for final decisions to be made. I know this is, perhaps, a question to ask of Ministers in a future session, but what are your thoughts on developing a draft code that parliamentarians might be able to look at whilst making those decisions, given that the legislation is now well under way? Is that something that you feel is a long way away, or would it be possible to have at least an outline of a draft code in a reasonably short period of time? I accept that there will be developments as we learn with experience.

Mark Cheeseman: I will leave Ministers to answer that question later, but we are developing the codes of practice now. The reason I talked about who has come into the Public Sector Fraud Authority to think about this is because it is not from scratch; we are basing it off current practice elsewhere. We are now developing those and they are under way, but I will leave it for Ministers to respond on the timescale.

[Mike Wood]

Q In terms of the obligations on organisations that are issued with information notices, based on your current experience, how many of the organisations that you approach asking for information typically respond within 10 days?

Mark Cheeseman: It is important to remember that the 10 days in the legislation is a minimum. It is the lowest that would be used. It is not saying that it will always be 10 days. One of the witnesses earlier highlighted that some of the organisations will have standard practices where they could respond in that time—they will be set up to do so. The time that is given will be dependent on the organisation you are interacting with, the individual you are interacting with and what is reasonable. Our fraud investigators are trying to balance the expediency of doing the investigation with making sure that people can respond, and that it is a fair and reasonable time to respond. The balance is there, and we should remember that that timescale is a minimum.

[Mike Wood]

Q It is absolutely a minimum, but is it correct that varying from that minimum is at the discretion of the Minister?

Mark Cheeseman: Yes, in the legislation.

[Mike Wood]

Q Does a review of the Minister’s decision also then go back to the original decision maker?

Mark Cheeseman: It is slightly different—it goes back within the structure, but the review of that decision is done by a separate authorised officer from the original authorised officer who did it.

[Mike Wood]

Q It is certainly a minimum, but a decision as to whether that is the right period of time is very much made within the organisation that is asking for the information, rather than there being any formal and independent process for the person responding to that request to be able to say, “Actually, we just can’t do this”.

Mark Cheeseman: The process as set out in the legislation is within the organisation, but there is an extra safeguard of an independent chair who will review the decisions taken by authorised officers. One would expect that that would be on a sampling basis, but we will be reviewing those decisions. If there are practices where those timescales look unreasonable, the independent chair could pick up on that and ask for action to be taken on it.

[Mike Wood]

Q But I am right in saying that that will be at a systemic level, rather than being able to say, case by case, “That was the wrong decision, and I am changing that decision.”

Mark Cheeseman: There will be case-by-case review, but you are right; it will be more, “Here is an issue that should be dealt with, and here’s how”.

[Andrew Western]

Q I suspect Minister Gould will have the bulk of the questions for you, Mark, but I have a very general question. There has, understandably, been a lot of discussion and questions today about the balance between people’s privacy and being able to prevent fraud. What is your overall view on whether the Bill strikes the necessary balance between the two?

Mark Cheeseman: My view is that the Bill does strike that balance, and it tries to strike the balance. It is difficult, because you need to balance the ability to take action against someone who has committed fraud against the state with having fair and reasonable processes for looking at someone who has not. The purpose of an investigation is not to find fraud; it is to find fact. That is why we have professionals who are trained and have a code of ethics around objectivity; their role is to find fact, not fraud. The Bill tries to strike that balance both by having authorised officers and by having the oversight that is in place. The Government structure, in having the counter-fraud profession, provides some of that as well. My view of the Bill is that there is a fair amount of independent oversight—that is a good thing—to increase how well things are done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the final session, we have the Ministers in charge of the Bill. We have until 5 pm. You have been participating actively in the proceedings already, but could both of you please introduce yourselves for the record?

Andrew Western: I am Andrew Western, Minister for Transformation at the DWP.

Georgia Gould: I am Georgia Gould, the Minister for public sector reform at the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for fraud against the public sector.

[Mike Wood]

Q A lot of the questions to witnesses today have revolved around the code of conduct. There are several parts of the Bill that refer to a code or codes of conduct. Can you give us an idea of how those will operate? Are we looking at a single code or multiple documents? What will their status be?

Andrew Western: For the DWP part of the Bill, there will be three individual codes of practice: one for the eligibility verification measure, one for the debt recovery measure and one for the information gathering measure. As for exactly how they will work, you will appreciate that we are able to talk only in general terms at the moment, because that will depend on what the final version of the Bill looks like. That is why we do not currently have a code of practice that we can share.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I say a bit about how we intend to engage both Houses on the content of the codes of practice. For the Bill Committee, I will provide an outline of what will be covered by the draft codes of practice as we come to each of the relevant clauses, allowing the Committee to provide feedback on what they feel should be in there.

Beyond that, we intend—there are ongoing engagements, as you heard earlier from, for instance, UK Finance—to publish a draft version of the codes of practice as they pertain to the DWP in time for the House of Lords Committee stage, so it will also have the opportunity to play into the conversation on that. Ultimately, there will be a final statutory public consultation on the content of the codes of practice. It is difficult to say with any sort of exactness or precision what the codes of practice will look like at this stage, without knowing what amendments, if any, will be made to the Bill. But I know that Georgia has a code of practice on her side as well.

Georgia Gould: I do, and the same applies. As we go through the clauses, I will share with the Committee where we are on the codes of practice in relation to those clauses. We are working on the same timeline set out by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. For the PSFA, within the Bill, it requires a code of practice that is particularly focused on penalties, in clause 60. Beyond that mandatory content, the intention is that the code of practice will also include information on safeguards and vulnerability assessments when it applies to the PSFA powers for investigating individuals, and more detailed information on the various reviews and appeals.

[Mike Wood]

Q Andrew, you have just come out of a period in opposition. You will understand the difficulty that this puts on Committee members being asked to consider legislation, fundamental aspects of which will depend on details in the code of practice. You seem to be suggesting that we will not see them until the House of Commons has completed all its stages.

Andrew Western: That is the route we are taking. Obviously, Members have an opportunity to suggest what they would like to see in the code. The code is primarily an operational document rather than one on the general principles in the Bill and what we are trying to achieve through it. I absolutely understand that Members will want to see that, but we are simply not able to bring forward a final code of practice. It would not be possible to do that without knowing what is in the Bill. We can commit to sharing a draft as soon as we are able, but even that would be subject to change. It is not unusual, as I understand it, for this to be the case.

[Mike Wood]

Q You say that you cannot bring forward the code at this point, because the Bill may change depending on amendments, yet you are able to bring forward a draft code ahead of the House of Lords Committee stage, where presumably, you will have rather less control over what amendments are passed. Surely if that argument were to hold at all, it would apply even more strongly to the House of Lords stages than to the House of Commons.

Andrew Western: All I would say is that that is the timeline we are proposing to follow. We will share the draft code of practice as soon as we are able to do so for all the measures that have them.

[Mike Wood]

Q What role will Parliament have in scrutinising those codes of practice?

Andrew Western: The codes of practice will be laid before both Houses. They will be published as the legislation sets out.

[Mike Wood]

Q So they will be published, but in terms of scrutiny, will there be any role for Parliament in agreeing or disregarding those codes?

Andrew Western: I am happy to confirm precisely—because it may be that Members, as we go through the Committee stage, make it very clear what their expectations would be—what the current proposal is before we go into line-by-line scrutiny on Thursday.

[Mike Wood]

Q Why does the decision seem to have been taken not to introduce these as statutory instruments?

Andrew Western: The codes of practice?

[Mike Wood]

Yes.

Andrew Western: Because they are iterative documents that will change as we go through the test-and-learn phase. In particular, we are looking to introduce the eligibility verification measure in quite a cautious manner initially to check that it works, and to check that we do not have the sort of overreach that some witnesses have suggested may be the case. We want to be certain that the false positives that we have talked about and that witnesses have raised are minimised as best as possible. It is to enable flexibility so that we have the maximum potential to make any changes that we require, but obviously we would update the House as and when we were to do that.

[Mike Wood]

Q But Andrew, you will be aware that new statutory instruments can be introduced and passed in Parliament in the space of six weeks. It is not an obstacle to an iterative approach if you choose to have the codes of practice introduced through statutory instruments, as happens in some areas, and take an approach that actually has a formal role for Parliament and the democratic scrutiny that the Government were so keen on when they were in opposition.

Andrew Western: I would be very happy to have that conversation, should you want to table any amendments in that regard.

[Mike Wood]

Q This is looking a lot like the King Henry VIII powers that the Government railed against in opposition for many years.

Andrew Western: I would not accept that and I do not think that that is the case. I would say that we require that flexibility. Even with the six weeks, if there are problems in the process, we would potentially need to act more swiftly than that, based on feedback from stakeholders. As I said, colleagues are very welcome to table amendments if they want to secure any changes in that regard.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Can I ask you a procedural question, Chair? Is it possible to furnish Committee members, through the Clerks, with instances in the last Parliament where codes of practice were missing from legislation? I certainly sat on Bill Committees where we did not even have the costings for Government plans. There seems to be a suggestion that this is not routine or is somehow abnormal. I wonder whether we could have that.

[The Chair]

That is a matter for debate. I think it is probably a question for the Library. Let us carry on with the questioning.

[Mike Wood]

Q If I may continue, and I am drawing to a conclusion, the Cabinet Office has a document, “Guide to Making Legislation”. Are you aware of it?

Andrew Western: Is that to me or Georgia?

[Mike Wood]

It is to you both as Ministers. It is the Government’s “Guide to Making Legislation”.

Andrew Western: Yes.

[Mike Wood]

Q Have you read it?

Andrew Western: Not recently, but I did when I first became a Minister.

[Mike Wood]

Q In appendix E, which relates to codes of practice and legislation, the first paragraph says:

“Where it is proposed to introduce a code of practice in a way or for a purpose which departs from the guidance below, Ministers should be aware that this is likely to be controversial, particularly in the House of Lords.”

Have officials brought that to your attention?

Andrew Western: As I said earlier, we hope to have a draft code of practice by the time we reach the House of Lords Committee Stage. Clearly, alongside consideration of that guidance, as I said—and it was reiterated by Mr Coyle—this has not been unusual practice in recent years, as I understand it.

[Mike Wood]

Q The document goes on to say that

“the drafting of the code ought to begin early enough to enable a decision as to whether statutory provision is required”.

Has that drafting been done early enough?

Andrew Western: As I said, we will debate this in more detail as we come to the relevant stages. I think that we have done this in sufficient time to enable us to consult, as we are required to do, on the statutory code of practice and to ensure that both Houses can see it as it makes its way through the process.

[Mike Wood]

Q Following that, the document states that

“if Parliament is to be asked to enact statutory provisions relating to a code,”

which appears to be the case in this instance,

“a draft of the proposed code should if at all possible be made available so that the appropriateness of the statutory provisions can be properly considered.”

Obviously, that is part of the legislative process. Should we not have that information? Why should only the House of Lords be provided with that?

Andrew Western: I suspect that at that point you are asking a procedural question, so I am not best placed to answer it.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

Q My question is quite straightforward. How much will the Bill save the taxpayer in the welfare fraud space?

Andrew Western: In the DWP space, we estimate that the amount would be £1.5 billion over the forecast period. That roughly equates to around £950 million on the eligibility verification measure, with the overwhelming majority of the rest—in fact, almost all of it—coming from the debt recovery power. There are also potentially significant savings over time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office may want to outline with regard to the PSFA powers. I realise that they are scalable; they start off small-scale. Minister Gould, would you like to come in on the potential?

Georgia Gould: They are more modest in the first instance. We are estimating just under £60 million-worth of savings. We are testing the new models. If the model is successful, there is potential to scale that up. We think that this is the first time we are introducing powers to take on fraud in the wider public sector outside tax and welfare. A huge amount of fraud has gone uninvestigated. We think the deterrent impact of this will be substantial.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s position appears to be that they accept that the failures between 2005 and 2007 constitute maladministration. All of us can see in our inboxes the number of women who, as result of decisions taken on the basis of that failure, suffered as a result. But the Government’s position seems to be that there should be no remedy because it would be too difficult to get it right. What kind of justice is that?

[Sir John Hayes]

There are several arguments used by those who do not want to get it right, to use my hon. Friend’s term. One is that the public do not care, although all the survey evidence suggests the opposite: that 75% of people think that WASPI women should be treated fairly. Another argument is that it will be too expensive. I could make all kinds of rather spiteful remarks about the Government’s decisions about public sector pay, but I will let them stand as a contradiction, without adding to them.

Covid-19: Disability-Inclusive Response

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate on this very important issue. I know she has worked tirelessly on the issue for many years, since she was elected to the House, both as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability and through the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.

I declare an interest as my wife works providing support and tutoring to a child with special educational needs in Birmingham, who receives support through the welfare system.

The covid pandemic has had a severe impact on many children around the country—on their education, their development and their welfare—but it has had a particular effect on many children with speech, language and learning disabilities. Understandably, some of the legal obligations on local authorities and on the national health service were eased earlier in the year with respect to the availability of staff during the heavier stages of lockdown. That was a necessary step, but it must not be a signal that necessary and vital support, particularly for children and young people with disabilities, is in some way discretionary. It is pleasing that no local authorities at all are currently using the easement provisions, which must be triggered only where absolutely necessary. Even then, all public authorities and agencies must ensure that appropriate and suitable provision can be made with the available staff.

Many local authority and national health service workers did heroic work throughout the first wave of the pandemic, particularly in the period between late March, when lockdown started and schools closed, and the end of the summer term in July. It was a time when an awful lot was expected of relatively few people, who did amazingly well, but far too many children received no specialist support during that time. It is almost worse that they did not even receive any explanation from the various agencies involved about why support was being withdrawn and when it might return.

Although it is clearly right for the Government to be doing everything possible to keep schools open and to be taking the measures available to ensure that children can continue going to school, we need to recognise that many children, particularly those with the most severe and complex special educational needs, have not been able to return to school. Many are still being educated at home, so it is important that a disability-inclusive covid response must involve thinking about how agencies can evolve to support SEND children who are stuck at home, and considering the parents and families of those children.

I see that my four minutes are up, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow on securing the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to repatriate British nationals stranded overseas as a result of the covid-19 pandemic.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to repatriate British nationals stranded overseas as a result of the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The reason the measure is being introduced now is that the advice that we have always had is that there was little point, if any, in introducing quarantine at the border with the R level—the level of the prevalence of the virus—at a high level, particularly above R1. Now that it has come down, and is still coming down even further, it makes sense, as we reduce the level of coronavirus in the UK, to introduce the measure to stop reinfection coming in from people carrying it from abroad, particularly those who would not necessarily be showing symptoms. There will be some flexibility in the detailed arrangements set out, but this will cover, in principle, all people coming in, whether it is to ports or to airports.

[Mike Wood [V]]

A number of my constituents were overseas when this pandemic struck and are now unable to get together the money they need to pay for new flights home. What action is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to financially support British nationals who are unable to get home and have no access to funds?

[Dominic Raab]

We have, in the first instance, worked with insurance companies to make sure that they extend travel policies by 60 days when emergency support is needed. I can also tell the House that the Foreign Office has introduced a special package to make sure that those who are stranded and cannot get back can receive support with food, accommodation and other essentials of up to £3,000 for individuals, £4,000 for a couple, and £5,000 for families. That is a last-resort option, but we are making sure that those who are hunkered down or stranded and cannot get back have the support that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

6. What assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of universal credit in helping people into work.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

10. What assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of universal credit in helping people into work.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

12. What assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of universal credit in helping people into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention. I thank the Witney jobcentre for the work that it does in helping people into work, and I also thank him for his work on this as a Member of Parliament. Of course it is essential that we make advanced digital equipment available to our work coaches to ensure that the service they deliver really is first class, and we will always ensure that they do.

[Mike Wood]

At the Stourbridge jobcentre, the work coaches are evangelical about how the flexibility of universal credit allows them to better support the most vulnerable and the hardest-to-help claimants. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this best practice is shared around the country so that more people can find sustainable work for the first time?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the good work being done by the Stourbridge jobcentre and its work coaches. He really highlights the other true benefit of universal credit, which is the personalised approach. It is no longer about signing on; it is about individuals going to the jobcentres and being offered real, tailored support to help them to deal with their challenges and to get into work. This is a revolutionary system.

Universal Credit

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I am particularly pleased to see the Minister for financial inclusion, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), in the Chamber. He joined me in my constituency over the summer to meet a range of agencies involved in the day-to-day work with people claiming universal credit, which was rolled out there in the middle of last year. What was particularly striking was the evangelism of the jobcentre staff, particularly the work coaches, and the transformation in morale in the jobcentres. That is because the staff, particularly the work coaches, are now finding that they can make a real positive difference to people’s lives by getting them into work.

I do not have time to give the House many case studies, but one involves a gentleman who had returned to this country after working abroad. At his first appointment with the jobcentre, staff identified the fact that his mental health was an issue and that his debt worries were leading to him no longer opening his post. As well as offering work coaching, they were able to ensure that he saw his GP to get his mental health issues addressed, and that he got debt advice and used strategies to deal with those problems. As a result of all that—although not as a result of his first interview—he is now in full-time employment. He has a new confidence and is working in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary.

We will all have seen the problems with some of the implementation and execution of universal credit, and it is good to see that that has, to an extent, been addressed since the roll-out began. I hope that the Government will use the time through to the roll-out to look at how universal credit can be improved further. To scrap it now would be a gross betrayal of those whose lives have been turned around.