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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Jeremy. Amendment 7 would introduce a new requirement for the direct recovery from account power, restricting its use to cases where the debtor agrees or where a court or tribunal determines that the exercise of the power is necessary and appropriate. I am not clear whether the amendment would do exactly what the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion intends, which I believe is to place the restriction on all the new DWP recovery powers proposed in the Bill, but I will address the amendment as I think it was intended.

Although I share the view that there should be protections in place to ensure that the direct recovery power is used proportionately and appropriately, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. In my view, the Bill already contains sufficient safeguards. The amendment would also introduce unnecessary burdens for courts and tribunals, create avoidable inefficiencies and, ultimately, reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money that the power would bring back into the public purse.

The Department has long-standing powers under sections 71 and 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to recover public money wrongly paid in excess of entitlement. Those provisions include a strong framework, including rights of reconsideration and appeal against the overpayment decision. The DWP already has powers to recover such overpayments through deduction from benefits and PAYE wages under sections 71, 71ZC and 71ZD of the 1992 Act.

The power in the clause is aimed at recovering taxpayers’ money owed by debtors who persistently evade repayment and refuse to engage with the DWP to agree affordable repayment terms, even though they have the means to do so. It is highly unlikely that those debtors, who, until this point in the debt recovery process, have ignored all reasonable requests by the DWP to work with it to agree repayment terms, would suddenly willingly agree to the DWP recovering the money they owe directly from their bank account. It is therefore highly likely that, under the amendment, the DWP would be required to seek a determination from the court or tribunal that a direct deduction order is necessary and appropriate.

The DWP can already seek lump sum recovery from a debtor’s bank account through the courts by applying for a third-party debt order. The very rationale for introducing this power is to recover more than £500 million of public money over the next five years without using court time unnecessarily. The amendment would create entirely avoidable inefficiencies.

The Bill already makes sufficient provision for a debtor to challenge a direct deduction order if they do not agree with it, first through the right to make representations concerning the terms of the order prior to any deductions being made and, following that, through a right of appeal to the tribunal. That is in addition to the debtor’s existing mandatory reconsideration and appeal rights concerning the decision that there is a recoverable overpayment that must be repaid.

In addition to those safeguards, the Bill includes sufficient provisions to ensure that the power is used appropriately and proportionately. Specifically, it provides that it is a last-resort power that can be used only if recovery is not reasonably possible by deductions from benefit or PAYE earnings. The debtor can avoid the power entirely at any point by working with the DWP to agree affordable and sustainable repayment terms.

Separately, the disqualification from driving power can be exercised only at the discretion of the court. Again, that provision includes necessity and proportionality considerations by requiring disqualification to be suspended provided that the debtor makes the payments ordered by the court, and ensuring that an order cannot be made if the court considers that the debtor has an essential need for a licence.

Lastly, the amendment would be likely to reduce the expected deterrent impact of the direct deduction power. Although the DWP will take the appropriate action, in line with legislation, to address debtors who persistently evade repayment of taxpayers’ money when they have the financial means to repay, the power is expected to encourage debtors to agree affordable and sustainable repayment with the DWP without the need to proceed with an order.

Making such an amendment would lessen the power’s effectiveness, meaning that the DWP would have to take this action more frequently than envisaged and potentially subject debtors to court proceedings where the DWP would not have as the Bill is currently drafted. I hope—but I suspect possibly not—that I have reassured the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Bill contains sufficient provisions and safeguards.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Is it fair to say, for the reasons that the Minister outlined on the removal of the deterrent, that this amendment would not only assist some who seek to commit fraud but cost the DWP in its internal legal responsibilities and duties, as well in what it has to contribute to the court process to pay for what the amendment would require, in the sum of tens of millions of pounds?

[Andrew Western]

I would not put a specific value on it, but my hon. Friend may well be right with the sort of figures that he suggests. Yes, there would be additional costs from the preparation in advance of court appearances, as well as the administrative costs of applying to the court itself. I think we would bear a significant burden, were we to agree to this amendment. Having outlined my reasons, I will resist amendment 7.

Clause 89 inserts proposed new section 80A into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and it sets out which debts can be recovered by the new DWP recovery powers introduced in part 2 of the Bill. The new recovery powers are, firstly, the power to recover from bank accounts via direct deduction orders and, secondly, the power to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence.

The introduction of this clause ensures that the DWP can apply the new recovery powers to relevant social security debts. The clause is crucial to ensure that the new recovery powers in clauses 90 and 91 are used proportionately, appropriately and as intended by making them a power of last resort. By that, I mean that the DWP can use the new powers only after a debtor has been given all reasonable opportunities to repay the money owed, and only where recovery by existing powers is not reasonably possible.

The DWP debt stock stands at over £9 billion. As set out in the impact assessment, there is approximately £1.7 billion of off-benefit debt where individuals are able to avoid repayment, as the DWP is currently unable to recover effectively and efficiently in these cases. The Department’s current recovery powers are limited to deductions from benefits or PAYE earnings, meaning that those with other income streams and capital can choose not to repay their debt. The powers are vital to tackle those who repeatedly and persistently evade repayment, bringing £565 million of taxpayers’ money back into the public purse over the next five years.

These powers are expected to have a deterrent effect and to encourage many debtors to agree to repay without the powers being used. Debtors will be notified of the powers and their potential to be used to recover the money owed, should the individual continue to evade repayment. Let me be clear: where someone keeps money to which they are not entitled and repeatedly refuses to repay, the DWP will recover that money through these new powers. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The challenge is that, by that time, we will have made repeated and sustained attempts to contact the person to ask them to engage with us to agree an affordable repayment plan, to assess their ability to agree that plan and to encourage them to pay back what has already been established as a recoverable debt. The requirement is part of a power of last resort. I am not convinced that we would be able to secure engagement from such a person, as the power applies in relation to someone we have repeatedly tried to contact. Without it, I fail to see how we could both have a conversation with someone whom we have not previously been able to contact and assure ourselves that we would not be putting somebody in a particularly challenging financial position.

[Neil Coyle]

Is it fair to say that the impact of this amendment, if made, would be to require the DWP to ask people that they suspect of committing fraud for their permission to investigate whether they are committing fraud? Is it not likely that the number of potential fraudsters willing to give that information would be the roundest of round numbers?

[Andrew Western]

Not quite. We would not be contacting banks to establish whether fraud had been committed under the amendment. We would already have established that a debt is owed, so that investigation would already have been completed. The debt, whether it was the result of fraud or error, has been established. However, I agree with my hon. Friend on the number of people who, having previously not engaged with us at all, will concur on the need to check bank statements to assess affordability. That may well be the roundest of round numbers.

Under the Bill, before any direct deduction order is actioned, the DWP must issue an account information notice to a bank to obtain bank statements. The AIN must contain the name of the debtor and identify the targeted account. This is a necessary and important safeguard so that the DWP can gather sufficient financial information to make informed decisions on fair and affordable debt recovery. Obtaining this information is also vital to the effectiveness of the direct deduction power, as the Bill is clear that a deduction cannot be made until this information has been acquired. Without the information from bank statements, the DWP will not understand a debtor's financial circumstances and will not be able to establish an affordable deduction rate and commence recovery.

I remind the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the reason the information is not known is the sustained lack of engagement by the debtor in efforts to agree a voluntary and affordable repayment plan, and that the power is aimed at recovering taxpayers’ money from debtors who persistently evade repayment and refuse to engage with the DWP. The information gathered will make it clear whether they have the means to do so. Finally, I remind the Committee that these powers will be used as a last resort, and that by working with the DWP to agree affordable and sustainable repayment terms, debtors can avoid the application of the powers altogether.

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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. With your permission, I will speak to amendment 37 before speaking to amendments 38 to 42. I will then speak to why the unamended clause 75 should stand part of the Bill.

Before I begin, I will respond to a couple of the comments made by the hon. Member for Horsham on the relatively small amounts of fraud and error we see. With this particular measure, as he is aware, we are initially targeting the three benefits with the highest levels of fraud and error. To take universal credit as an example, it is £1 in every £8 spent, which is a tremendously high number and one we must do everything we can to bring down. However, it is worth recognising and explaining to colleagues that the measures in the Bill are part of a broader package to tackle fraud, which reached £8.6 billion across the relevant period. This is not the beginning and end of the Department’s work on fraud across that period, but it is the part of that overall package that requires legislation.

Returning to my substantive notes on the question of a “board” versus a “person”, I think there may be some misunderstanding of definitions here. Amendment 37 seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to consult a relevant Committee of the House of Commons before appointing the independent overseer of the eligibility verification measure. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I will be resisting it.

We recognise the importance of appointing the right person or body to oversee the use of the eligibility verification measure. That is why we have made it a requirement that the overseer report annually on the use of the power directly to the Secretary of State, who will then lay the report before Parliament. We have included that key safeguard to ensure the effective and proportionate use of this power and to introduce greater transparency in the use of it. The person or body will be appointed following a fair and public recruitment process, which will be carried out under the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

I assure the Committee today that we will abide by the governance code on public appointments throughout the process. Whether this role is subject to pre-appointment scrutiny will be governed by the code, and we will follow its guidance at all times. The final decision on who will oversee this measure will, in all cases, be made by the Secretary of State. That is because the governance code on public appointments points out:

“The ultimate responsibility for appointments and thus the selection of those appointed rests with Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions.”

We will keep the House informed about the process at all key stages, including when the process is set to begin and on the proposed final appointment.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Am I right in thinking that the Work and Pensions Committee will be entitled to call any witness, including whoever is appointed to this role, to give evidence to it and to be scrutinised by its members?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Select Committee always has that power, and were it to have any concerns whatever, it would look to exercise that power at the earliest opportunity.

I recognise that the amendment has been tabled with good intentions. However, because of our commitment to an open and transparent recruitment process, and because we will be abiding by the requirements of the governance code on public appointments, it is unnecessary and I will resist it.

I will now turn to amendments 38 to 42, which seek to remove the term “person” and insert the term “board” in reference to the appointment of an independent reviewer of the eligibility verification measure, as set out in clause 75. I recognise the intent behind the points raised, but the amendments are unnecessary and I will resist them. It is probably useful to clarify that, legally, the term “person”, as referred to in the clause, can refer to an individual person, a body of people or a board, as per the Interpretation Act 1978. I therefore reassure the Committee that any reference to “person” in the Bill includes a body of persons, corporate or incorporated, that is a natural person, a legal person or, for example, a partnership.

I reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State will appoint the most appropriate and suitable independent oversight for the measure. That might be an individual expert, which is consistent with the approach taken for oversight of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, or it might be a group of individuals who form a board or committee. As the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments clearly sets out, Ministers

“should act solely in terms of the public interest”

when making appointments, and I can assure the Committee that we will do just that.

To offer further reassurance, I confirm that the appointment process for the independent person or body will be open, fair and transparent, adhering strictly to the governance code on public appointments, which ensures that all appointments are made based on merit, fairness and openness. The Government will of course notify the House of the appointment. I therefore resist these amendments.

I will now turn to clause 75. Independent oversight is one of several safeguards for the eligibility verification measure, and I remind the Committee of the others that we discussed on Thursday. First, we are initially pursuing the measure with just three benefits in scope. Others can be added by regulations, but not, in any circumstances, the state pension, which is specifically excluded from the Bill. Furthermore, limits on the data that can be collected are set out in the Bill. For instance, no transactional data or special category data can be shared. Finally, as we discussed at length on Thursday, a human decision maker will be in place to determine whether any fraud has been committed.

Clause 75 provides a vital safeguard for the eligibility verification power. By inserting proposed new sections 121DC and 121DD into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, it establishes a requirement for independent oversight of the power, to ensure accountability, compliance and effectiveness. We recognise the importance of safe and transparent delivery of the eligibility verification measure, which is why we are legislating to make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint the independent person to carry out annual reviews.

As per proposed new section 121DC(2), the person must prepare a report and submit it to the Secretary of State. And as per new subsection (3), the Secretary of State must then publish the report and lay a copy before Parliament. New subsection (4) outlines that the first review must relate to the first 12 months after the measure comes into force, and new subsection (5) outlines that subsequent reviews must relate to each subsequent period of 12 months thereafter. Those annual reviews and reports will ensure transparency in the use of the measure and its effectiveness.

To ensure that the eligibility verification measure is exercised in a responsible and effective manner, in accordance with the legal framework, new section 121DC further details what each review must consider during the review period. That includes compliance with the legislation and the code of practice, and actions taken by banks and other financial institutions in complying with eligibility verification notices. The review must also cover whether the power has been effective in identifying, or assisting in identifying, incorrect payments of the benefits covered during the review period. In new subsection (7), there is provision for the Government to bring forward regulations to provide relevant functions to the independent reviewer to enable them to perform their duties under the clause.

In order to ensure that the independent reviewer is able to fulfil their duties, clause 75 also provides a legal gateway for the Secretary of State to disclose information to the independent reviewer, or a person acting on the reviewer’s behalf, for the purposes of carrying out the review. That can be found in new section 121DD, which is inserted by clause 75. Data protection provisions in new sections 121DD(2) to (4) make it clear that such sharing must comply with data protection legislation and other restrictions on the disclosure of information.

In conclusion, the clause represents a key safeguard in relation to the new power and confirms a previous commitment to Parliament to establish oversight over it and ensure its proportionate and effective use. On that basis, I propose that clause 75 stand part of the Bill.

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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I reflect to the hon. Member for South West Devon that accusing somebody of being short-sighted when they have a guide dog with them is a bit of a juxtaposition, but it was taken well.

The Liberal Democrats and I have grave concerns about this Orwellian approach to mass surveillance, and that the proposals are overcooked. I go back to my concerns that the DWP is, sadly, not fit for purpose. One has to look only at the significant delays throughout the system and the challenges within that Department, and yet we are looking at granting it massive, extremely significant powers. The DWP already has the ability to intervene where it suspects fraud, and we welcome that where there is reasonable suspicion, but to actually subject people to this approach is outrageous. Some of the evidence I heard when I consulted people from disability groups is that people with mental health issues may be fearful. They may think, “Because the Government Minister is looking in my bank account, I can’t afford the nice cheesecake from Waitrose. I can only shop in discounted supermarkets because the Minister is going to be watching what I am doing.”

Turning to our amendments, we have grave concerns that the approach could be the thin end of the Government wedge. We have therefore tabled amendment 29 to put a clear restriction on the proposals, ensuring that what is before us is set in stone rather than allowing for mission creep.

On amendment 30, we know from the debacle around the winter fuel allowance that getting pensioners to step up to the mark and claim pension credit has been a real challenge. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that pension credit is an area where there are significantly lower levels of fraud. There are already low levels of fraud generally throughout the benefits system, but the pension credit levels are extremely small.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I think the Conservative spokesperson just gave the figure of £500 million in pension credit fraud and error last year. Is the Lib Dem spokesperson saying that that is not very much?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is important for us all in this place to remember that, although we make legislation with the best of intentions, it does not always play out perfectly in practice. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I heard evidence a few days ago from a number of claimants who have had a very bad experience at the hands of the DWP. Their overall theme was one of antagonism and hostility from the service, and they described a number of serious problems.

That is the attitude that, unfortunately, many claimants and many people across the country have. They think that the objective of the DWP is to catch them out rather than to help them—rightly or wrongly, that is what they feel. In that context, the title of this Bill covers “fraud and error”, not “fraud and genuine human mistake”—which, frankly, is what goes on a lot of the time.

I say that particularly in the context of our amendment 30 relating to pension credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has described, pension credit is an area of relatively low fraud. However, there are more elderly and vulnerable people who are more likely to make an error, particularly in the context of the removal of winter fuel payments. There is a little extra onus on pension credit, and we are trying to push greater take-up. About a third of eligible people do not claim pension credit. Part of the reason is that many of them feel intimidated by the process and the feeling that they are getting something that they should not have. It is fear that holds them back.

A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said she would “move heaven and earth” to try to push that take-up higher, because we never seem to get past that 65% to 66% level. In that context, this feels like a retrograde measure, likely to depress rather than to encourage take-up.

[Neil Coyle]

Could the hon. Member give us the figures on the increase in pension credit take-up for the period during which a Lib Dem held the position of Minister for Pensions?

[John Milne]

That was before my time and I was not even in the country, so I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

It is very important that we should be pushing take-up, not sending it into reverse. For that reason, I ask the Minister to reconsider the need to include pension credit; that the upside—the amount of money that might be recovered from fraudulent claims—is relatively modest compared with the potential downside of putting more people off claiming.

Regarding amendment 29, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, we have heard from many witnesses, such as Big Brother Watch, about the risk of mission creep and these powers being extended in too many directions. It seems to me completely unnecessary to simply give the Minister of the day the power to add whatever benefits he or she feels like at that time. There is no need for it. Excluding that now does not affect the tax take or the potential benefit for the Government, and it seems an unnecessary and disproportionate power. I urge the Minister to reconsider the inclusion of that measure.

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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

Okay. Even with that title?

Joshua Reddaway: Even with that title.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q Joshua, you spoke about the Bill’s dual powers, both prevention and recovery. I just wonder, is it possible to quantify or estimate a percentage or lump sum figure of how much is expected to be saved from people who know they can no longer attempt to fiddle by not declaring capital or multiple accounts? Are you able to put a figure on that, or would you look for implementation before working on figures?

Joshua Reddaway: On how much fraud is created?

[Neil Coyle]

Q On how much this legislation will prevent people from trying to fiddle the system. There will be people who are aware of the new powers who then do not do it; that is the point you were talking about when it comes to prevention.

Joshua Reddaway: Is this the behavioural effect?

[Neil Coyle]

Q The deterrent effect, yes.

Joshua Reddaway: I have not done anything that adds to the information that is already in the impact assessment. I have not audited it, so I would just point to the numbers in there. I know there is an issue around whether people will split their money between multiple bank accounts. Is that also part of what you are referring to?

[Neil Coyle]

Yes.

Joshua Reddaway: I have spoken to DWP and the OBR about that. My understanding is that frankly it is an area of uncertainty, and that they wanted to make an adjustment because they knew there would be an effect but they do not know what that will be. We will have to come back and see what that is.

For me, the more fundamental point is that this power will not stop all fraud. It is designed to stop some. Will there be behavioural effects that will limit that? Yes. Does that in itself mean you should not try? No.

[Neil Coyle]

Q As the new powers are rolled out, where people attempt fraud and a recovery effort is made, that will be clear and quantifiable. Will you be able to put a figure on that? Will you be assessing in any way how much of a deterrent it has been to have the new powers, including the access to bank accounts, for example?

Joshua Reddaway: My first instinct is that I would ask DWP how it was going to do that, because that is how the wonderful world of audit works.

[Neil Coyle]

Of course.

Joshua Reddaway: Secondly, I would suggest to them that they can establish a baseline, because this is pretty transparent within their published statistics. You have got a breakdown there of how much fraud is caused by people mis-stating their capital. The reason DWP is able to do that is because when you apply for a benefit, you do not have to provide your bank statements, but when you are subject to an inquiry that informs the statistics, you do have to provide your bank statements. The statistic is generated by the difference between those two processes. That will continue to be the case after this power is enacted.

[Andrew Western]

Q Following on from one of my colleagues’ earlier questions, can I come back to the Bill’s ability to clamp down on and look at error? Would it be your view that in addition to identifying instances of capital fraud or of people living abroad or being abroad for longer than they should be, there is also the potential for the eligibility verification measure to capture overpayments? It would therefore ultimately have the benefit of reducing the level of debt that somebody might find themselves in were that to go undetected for a longer period of time.

Joshua Reddaway: I think that is a fair comment, given that I said it does not really deal with error. I was really referring to the enforcement powers under PSFA. I think PSFA do other stuff that is in the error space, but the enforcement stuff is not. The enforcement stuff for DWP also will not really be in the error space. However, you are quite right that any data matching is an opportunity to detect error, and DWP are used to that. For example, when they are doing targeted case reviews, that will be detecting error as well as fraud. What we know from the statistics is that DWP believes there is more fraud than error in that space, but I entirely accept the premise of your question, and I should have made that part clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

Q Sorry, Chair, the second question I asked about the percentage of error was not answered. What percentage of error do you think would be acceptable, in terms of innocent people being targeted for investigation?

Andrew Western: I am not prepared to put a percentage on it. We would have to see what came out. We have done two previous trials on this and we are fairly confident in the mechanisms that are in place. That has underpinned some of the assumptions we have made. We are committing through this process to a test and learn phase so that we can keep errors as minimal as possible. Ideally, I would not want to see any errors at all, but ultimately we have structured this so that, were something to come back as a false positive, as it were, it would not lead to an immediate decision, because it would be passed to a human investigator for further investigation.

[Neil Coyle]

Q The first question is about legacy. The last Government were truly record-breaking. We now have a social security system with the highest ever fraud rates and with little action to tackle it. We heard from witness after witness today that the police have lacked the capacity and resource to tackle the problems. To what extent do you think the legislation is necessary to address the challenge that has gone untackled for over a decade?

Andrew Western: I think it is fundamental, given both the lack of previous action that you identify and a general modernisation of powers. The world is changing. The nature of fraud is changing, and the behaviours exhibited by fraudsters are different from those of 10 or 15 years ago. The previous Government tried to bring forward the third-party data measure, now likened to the eligibility verification measure, but it did not have the oversight and safeguards in place that we have now.

There are a number of totally new proposals in the Bill that are crucial. To your point about the capacity of the police, the powers of search and seizure will be particularly helpful in speeding up investigations into serious and organised crime, because we can crack on with that, as it were, and enter premises without the need to wait for co-ordinated action from the police.

The other totally new power that is really important here, and which I personally think is a fairness argument, is the ability to directly deduct from people who receive their income through means other than benefits or PAYE employment. Overall, it is a fundamental change to the way that we do it, and it is part of a broader package. As I said earlier, this saves £1.5 billion over the forecast period, but it is part of a broader suite of measures that amount to the largest ever intervention to tackle fraud of £8.6 billion over that period. Unfortunately, like many of these things, that number is so high because the level of fraud we have is so high.

Georgia Gould: I add that the PSFA measures are entirely new. There have previously been no powers to investigate and recover fraud from the wider public sector, outside of tax and welfare. This is some of the highest-value fraud, through procurement or businesses falsely applying for Government grants, which is currently going un-investigated because of the resource pressures that you talked about. These are landmark new powers to investigate fraud across the wider public sector that have not previously been considered.

[Neil Coyle]

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

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

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

[Charlie Dewhirst]

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

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

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

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Yes, I agree that we have got to tackle the root causes of the problem and have an NHS and social care system that is fit for purpose. We have put forward our commitments on mental health support in every school and every community. We know that many mental health problems start before someone turns 18, so we have to try to prevent those problems in the first place, but there is much more that we need to do.

We are starting to see fantastic NHS services that provide employment advice as part of care. The evidence shows that if a person is in good work, a sense of purpose and structure is good for their mental health. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is pushing for that to be available in all parts of the country.

I am under no illusions about the scale of the challenge. Only 3% of people who are economically inactive get back to work in any given year, so we have to prevent the problems from happening in the first place as well as doing more to help those people into work.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Under the last Government, the DWP faced legal action for its unlawful treatment of disabled people. How will this White Paper, with its positive vision, rebuild trust and better support disabled people going forward?

[Liz Kendall]

The Government believe that disabled people have the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work. Our mission is to break down the barriers. Many disabled people would want to work if they could get the right help and support and a job that fits their needs and concerns, with greater flexibility. This is a really important challenge. I do not blame disabled people for often being frightened and worried when they hear about these discussions after what happened over the past 14 years, but we will work with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to get the world of work and the employment support system right and get a better-functioning system of disability benefits. This is a really big challenge for our country, but with these proposals we are taking an important step forward.

Income Tax (Charge)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The Labour party pledged at the last election to usher in a new form of politics based on transparency and integrity. When pressed, Labour Members ruled out a large number of tax rises. One of these taxes, as the Labour manifesto explicitly stated, was national insurance:

“we will not increase National Insurance”.

Yet, only a few short weeks later, what has happened in this Budget? Employers’ national insurance contributions have been raised, which is a direct breach of the Labour manifesto. Do not take my word for it—Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said exactly the same.

Of course, despite being at the scene of the crime, the Government have since hidden behind their alibi that, somehow, putting up employers’ national insurance contributions will have no impact on working people, but that is simply untrue.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

As the right hon. Lady knows full well, it is accepted that the key measure is absolute poverty after housing costs. She cannot flit between one measure and another when it suits her. The reality is that it is projected that 100,00 more children and 300,000 more adults will be in poverty as a consequence of the Budget.

[Neil Coyle]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mel Stride]

How can I finally resist the hon. Gentleman, who is just itching to make some point about integrity? The Floor is his.

[Neil Coyle]

The shadow Chancellor raises the issue of integrity and he talks about poverty. Many disabled people live in poverty. When he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he told the House that there would be no investigation into the Department for Work and Pensions for unlawful treatment of disabled people. Does he owe this House, or does he owe disabled people, an apology?

[Mel Stride]

I stand by our record when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, particularly on the support that the Department gave to the disabled, not least the results that we achieved in encouraging and helping them into work, which is the best possible outcome.

When there has been such a perpetration of deceit, there must be the alibi—the smokescreen—which is, of course, the fictitious, confected black hole of £22 billion. Labour Members rubbed their hands in glee when the OBR said it would be looking into the matter. It reported back, on the day of the Budget, and what did it find? It found that it was not able to legitimise that black hole of £22 billion, and came up with a figure for in-year fiscal pressure that was below half that. It observed that if it had been focused on that figure at the time of the spring Budget, conversations would have been held, and it is conceivable that the number would have been smaller still.

From our experience in government, we know that it is quite normal practice to manage in-year fiscal pressures, and to net off the underspends against the overspends. In reality, this black hole is “a dead parrot”. It has ceased to be. If it was not nailed to its perch, it would be “pushing up the daisies”. Far from being just “shagged out” after a prolonged squark, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is dead: the black hole is “an ex-parrot”.

Disabled People on Benefits: EHRC Investigation

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he approaches this matter. It also gives a chance for all of us to thank our casework teams who do so much, and indeed all the staff across DWP. They know that our customers vary. They know that, at times in their lives, they need additional support. That is why we have those specialist services, roles and procedures in place, from the DWP visiting service to the advanced customer support senior leaders. We have the serious case panel review, and we have the customer experience survey. We are always listening and learning, and there is a continuous need to do that. On fluctuating conditions, which other Members have mentioned, we have put a better understanding of needs and diagnoses at the heart of our engagement on reforms, and that is what disabled people have told me as well.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Ministers have had three years to reach a basic agreement to ensure that the services that the Department provides are accessible and do not discriminate against disabled people. Is it laziness, incompetence or the chaos endemic across Government that has resulted in the absolute failure to reach a negotiation? Can the Minister acknowledge that this failure has never been seen in any other Department before, and represents, under the Equality Act, a further demonstration of discrimination against disabled people? The failure of the negotiations itself represents the problem.

[Mims Davies]

I reiterate to the House, and to the hon. Gentleman, that we take our obligations under the Equality Act incredibly seriously. I have spoken about the changing nature of conditions, understanding and learning, and the public sector equality duty, and we will continue to co-operate and engage with the commission on its investigation. As I said, we do not believe that an investigation is necessary, but we do take its concerns seriously. I undertake to the House that the Department will be focused on those new terms of reference so that we can work constructively with the commission, in its investigation, to better understand its concerns. [Interruption.] I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who is chuntering again, but I reiterate to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) that we are very much determined to work with the commission as a way forward. I agree that it is very disappointing that we have not been able to come to a mutually agreeable position. I assure him that, over the past five years, this very large Department, which deals with many different areas and complex case, has put at the heart of what we do—of which I am extremely proud—a dedicated understanding of the individual and their needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

The Government are putting an enormous amount of effort into improving the uptake of pension credit. The number of claims received in financial year 2022-23 was more than 80% higher than in the same period the year before, and the recent case load is going up for the first time in over a decade. We have given cost of living payments to pensioners on pension credit—we have given pensioners extra money on top of their winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments. The reality is that no Government have supported the pensioner population more than this Government have. As we all know, Labour is the party of 75p pension increases; no pensioner will ever forget that.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to reduce waiting times for Access to Work assessments.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)]

Access to Work remains in high demand. We have increased the number of staff processing Access to Work claims, and are prioritising both renewal applications and applications from customers about to start a job. We are also improving the service through increased digitalisation to reduce the time from application to decision.

[Neil Coyle]

On this, there is a litany of broken promises to disabled people. Ministers have failed to tackle the backlog, failed to open the scheme to more employers, failed to extend the scheme to apprenticeships and failed to passport packages of support. So why have Ministers now decided to hit disabled people with more brutal cuts to PIP, when they have not supported disabled people into work through Access to Work?

[Mims Davies]

The average timescale for an Access to Work application decision in April 2024 was 43.9 days. We have increased the staff on applications, redeploying 95 staff from wider DWP work. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s points, claims for reimbursement are in a good position within a 10-day ambition to pay. It reflects the ambition that employers have and their mindset change to be more open-minded with their recruitment, and I am delighted about that.

Health and Disability Reform

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The Prime Minister shares my view, which is that it is really important that we achieve the best possible outcomes for the people whom we are discussing in this statement. He cares a great deal, and I think he said at the end of his speech that he wanted to help many people, some of whom are watching the screen flickering away while their opportunities drift off into the distance—or words to that effect. That speaks from the heart. That says that we have a Prime Minister who cares deeply that opportunities in our society should be made as widely available as possible. That is a view, a characteristic and a quality that I admire and that I share with him.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has upset many disabled people and organisations with his clumsy, negative and juvenile approach. Mind, for example, has asked for a grown-up conversation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box today that there has never been a review of personal independence payments, but there have been two independent reviews commissioned by the Department, so perhaps he could correct the record when he gets to his feet. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so when will the Department publish its assessment of the impact of these latest cuts on disabled people using PIP to support themselves in work?

[Mel Stride]

It is the case that there has not been a fundamental review of PIP on the basis that that has subsequently led to a change in that benefit. Therefore, it is the case that that benefit has remained fundamentally the same for more than decade—it actually came in in 2013, as the hon. Gentleman will know. On what assessments may or may not be made available, I think they will come at a point when the Government arrive at their conclusions having conducted the consultation.

Work Capability Assessment Consultation

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend has used exactly the right word: it is imperative that we get those people into the world of work. If somebody is on benefits—and we know that one in five of those people would, with the right support, like to get into work—it is our duty as a Government and as a society to do whatever we can to support them.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In 2011, this Government said that they would help 100,000 disabled people into employment through dedicated personalised support, such as Access to Work. In the 12 years since, the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work has risen from 37,000 to 38,000. Given the Department’s failure and the wider context of cuts, would disabled people not be forgiven for thinking that this is just further cuts dressed up as modernisation?

[Mel Stride]

Not at all, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have set out very clearly the principled reason why we are bringing forward these measures. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when it comes to more disabled people moving into the workforce, we set a target for the 10-year period from 2017 to see a million more disabled people in employment. We broke that target in half that time, reaching 1.3 million in addition after just five years.