Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

It is telling that the Secretary of State has not matched these spending increases with robust plans to tackle fraud and error, or tie any uplifts with measures to help people back into work. In short, the Secretary of State has failed to ensure that there are clear performance measures in place to guarantee value for money for the taxpayer. Without that, taxpayers will continue on their slippery slope of simply paying more while getting less.

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

Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?

[Graham Stuart]

If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.

[Neil Coyle]

I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.

Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne]

Yes, I agree that that is an additional concern.

The implication has been made, both by this Government and the previous one, that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people simply exaggerating their conditions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. For all these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the Bill now and to make a fresh start. Denying adequate support today will only shift the burden tomorrow on to social care, the emergency services and our already overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once, but three times, that our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment 36 is a chance to show that we are listening.

[Neil Coyle]

I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today, in particular those that call for delays to legislation. We are one year into a five-year term—20% of this Parliament is gone—and the public need to see progress, not further delay.

I am mindful that Ministers have already done a huge amount of heavy lifting to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We should all recall that in July 2024, the Department for Work and Pensions was under formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people. This Government have made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this Bill and linked to it, such as abolishing the work capability assessment. I have been here for 10 years—some might say it feels like longer—but before entering this place, I campaigned, as the chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, to abolish the work capability assessment. I know that disabled people and their organisations are grateful and thankful for the inclusion of that measure in the wider package that the Government are bringing forward.

Although it seems to have been lost in some of the debates we have had on the subject, I am also mindful that in my own constituency, the number of claimants for PIP will rise in this Parliament, spending on that will continue to rise in this Parliament, and the 12,700 universal credit claimants in my constituency will get an additional payment under this Government’s plans, which will be the first ever above-inflation rise in universal credit. There is much to gain and much that is supported by disabled people and their organisations in the package that the Government have brought forward.

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Being seen automatically as vulnerable because of a health condition or impairment is not in line with the social model of disability. Many disabled people find that patronising and offensive, and we need to update our system, just as we updated our system thanks to previous Labour Governments. We had the first ever blind Secretary of State in David Blunkett—now Lord Blunkett—at a time when the benefits system said that blind people were not required to participate in work-related activity. The benefits system is not a static beast: it is an evolving creature that needs to be updated to reflect changes in assistive technology, medication and adaptation and advances in technology.

We must not end up with a system in which people are written off and parked in a system because it is too difficult to get them into work. That is not a Labour solution. We are the party of full employment, which must and should include disabled people if we are committed to disability equality and if we are the party of progress. I will chip in that this party takes no lectures on what is progressive from nationalists, whether it is Scottish nationalists or the populists in Reform. We see the costs to disabled people of parking under the former benefits system and legacy benefits: the longer that somebody is out of work, the more ill health that they experience, including mental health and depression, and the more costs that they incur for the NHS. There are state benefits and individual benefits for getting the right support.

I speak from rather too much personal family experience. My mum has schizophrenia and my dad had a stroke in his 40s. He was told by the jobcentre, “This is what you will get. Now, basically, sod off—we do not want to see you, and we do not expect to provide you with anything.” He found his own way back into work through going to university as a mature student—well, not that mature—at Newcastle University, and he graduated in the same year as me.

We should look at the wider picture of full employment. I particularly welcome the Government’s broader aim of reducing the disability employment gap, which was deeply neglected for 14 years, and transforming jobcentres from benefit administration centres. They had been failing not because of a lack of will or frontline staff, some of whom are absolutely excellent, but simply because the job they were given to do had changed from being about supporting people into work to simply administering a failing system that, as we discussed earlier, had the highest fraud levels ever seen in the UK social security system.

I think most of us believe that disability equality is measured not in the amount of benefits that individuals receive, but in the shared opportunities and access to life chances open to all in our country. I am deeply mindful of that, because while we had a lost generation under the 14 years of the Conservative Government and the Lib Dem coalition Government, we had a previous Government who were deeply committed to those issues. That Government published a report, 20 years ago today, called “Improving the life chances of disabled people” with an implementation and delivery date that was meant to provide those opportunities and equal access by 2025. Sadly, those coalition and Conservative years set back the clock.

The report is still available to all those who want to see it, and it talks about pathways to work and dedicated employment programmes being necessary, such as the new deal for disabled people. Those programmes were largely demolished by the coalition. It talks about the importance of the role of the NHS, GPs, occupational health and rehab. Again, a Labour Government are now fixing the wider NHS problems to make those aims and objectives deliverable today. The then Prime Minister’s strategy in the report committed to changing the system so that it tested functionality and ability to contribute, rather than writing people off. Again, this Government have had to come back to that after a lost decade.

We had a report 20 years ago that talked about the necessity of a better equipment system and the need to improve access to work—something that Ministers are committed to today and are beginning to transform with faster assessment processes and by delivering the kit needed. The report also talks about the importance of engaging with employers and the positive role that Jobcentre Plus could play in engaging employers early in the process. Sadly, we have seen a long delay in delivering those improved life chances, but this is a Labour party back in government and trying to deliver disability equality and improve the life chances of disabled people. The measures in this Bill are integral to that aim.

As I say, I am concerned about some of the amendments before us. I also have some concerns that the Bill needs to go further in tackling barriers to work for disabled people, such as the benefits structure, including for those in supported accommodation. It is great that we have the right to try, but more is necessary. We also need to go a bit further with employers, including around reasonable adjustments and ensuring that employers do not accept resignations based on ill health immediately, but look at the packages of support that might be necessary, as well as working with them to tackle discrimination. The Federation of Small Businesses in particular, which has done work on this issue previously, would be a really useful partner to have going forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

The fact that the Government have refused to commit to not raising taxes means it is probably inevitable that they will. However, it is quite clear that Labour MPs will feel emboldened to push for more unaffordable changes to our welfare system, including the two-child benefit cap.

Let us be clear: part of the reason why these plans have been so rushed and badly thought through is the mess the Chancellor has made. This Bill is an attempt to find the quickest and crudest savings possible—to plug the hole in the public finances that she has created—but the Chancellor is not the only one to blame. It beggars belief that the Labour party came into office after 14 years in opposition with no serious plan for reforming welfare. What was Labour doing all that time? The welfare bill is already totally unsustainable, and it is only getting worse.

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

As one of the Labour Back Benchers who will be supporting the Government, I would just point out that there are not that many Back Benchers behind the Leader of the Opposition, and there are fewer every week. However, given that she has just said that she wants to cut the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions further, perhaps she could tell us what she would cut. What exactly would she do?

[Mrs Badenoch]

We would cut unemployment.

As I was saying, health and disability benefits are forecast to rise to £100 billion, meaning that one in every four pounds raised in income tax will pay for those benefits. That is not sustainable. Until the pandemic, we in the Conservative party had spent years bringing down the benefits bill and getting people back into work, including millions of disabled people. Talent, energy and ingenuity are not confined to those in perfect health. If we want to afford public services, improve people’s lives and compete globally, we cannot consign so many people to a life out of work—we have to get them into work. I believe that the whole House agrees that the system needs change. We may disagree on what exactly that change looks like, but what we have in front of us today is just a big mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I associate myself with the speech just made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the reasoned amendment that we are now debating.

Over the past few weeks that the Green Paper has been under debate, some of the comments from Labour high command, such as describing Labour Back Benchers as “noises off”, have been disturbing in the extreme. People who should know better within the leadership of the Labour party described PIP as “pocket money”, which is utterly shameful. The way the Bill is being dashed through is equally shameful, and it decreases the credibility of Ministers. If the Bill is fine, it should have appropriate levels of scrutiny. We all know that rushed Bills are poor Bills, and the law of unintended consequences will come to haunt the Government if this Bill goes through.

As has been alluded to, this two-tier approach to the system is wrong. I and the Liberal Democrats have grave concerns that it is un-British, unjust and not the way of our world. We have heard the Minister saying that it has been done before, but that does not make it right. It is almost Orwellian that we will have a system where in our law we say that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the hon. Member saying that he regrets the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition establishing PIP and abolishing disability living allowance? The Leader of the Opposition gave the example of someone with Parkinson’s. Someone with Parkinson’s who is over 65 could be on DLA, PIP and attendance allowance. Does he regret that decision? Should that situation not exist?

Disabled People in Poverty

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech.

Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty.

I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.

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

On the suggestion that there is no evidence, does the evidence not come from when the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee looked at previous assessment changes?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction.

We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing.

The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer.

It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence.

As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.

[Neil Coyle]

On the hugely important issue of discrimination that my hon. Friend touched on, does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Government inherited a position where the Department for Work and Pensions was being investigated for unlawful discrimination against disabled people? That is another of the issues that the ministerial team and the Government are having to fix—issues that they inherited from the chaotic and incompetent Governments of the previous 14 years, five of which were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.

There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I am reminded of the gentleman who won “Strictly Come Dancing” last year, who said that what people with disability need is “opportunity, support and determination”. My hon. Friend’s example demonstrates that in spades.

I will not spend too much time discussing Access to Work, but it is a broken system. It should be there to support people, but it undermines them through massive delays in assessments. In south Devon, businesses that support people have closed down because they are owed so much money. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot closed because of a lack of money, due to the arrears owed to it by Access to Work.

I am concerned that Ministers are getting confused—I will be extremely upset if they do so today—about employment and PIP. They should not be confused. PIP is purely about ensuring that people can live what many of us would see as normal lives. I represent the most deprived community with a Liberal Democrat representative, Torbay, and I am concerned that the cuts to PIP will see cash sucked out of some of our most deprived communities across the country. That is money that would go to people doing support work such as cleaning, helping people to go shopping, taxis and so on being sucked out of what are already our most impoverished communities. There are some real challenges there. The real killer is that 150,000 carers could lose support funding—£12,000 per household. That will push people deeper into poverty and further into destitution.

[Neil Coyle]

Can the hon. Gentleman remind us whether the disability employment gap and the disability poverty gap rose or fell when his party was in government?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I always look forward with great relish to his interventions.

I am concerned at the lack of consultation around the cuts. That is perverse. I am also concerned that the Government may be rushing the proposals through, perhaps even without a Bill Committee, but rather a Committee of the whole House. Will the Minister assure us that the Bill will receive appropriate scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Danny Kruger]

There were significant issues presented by the benefit reforms that the last Government introduced—again, in response to the fiscal crisis that they inherited. Many of those reforms were very positive in terms of getting people into work. However, I recognise that the axe fell disproportionately on certain members of the community, and I recognise many of the challenges faced by our constituents over the years.

Nevertheless, I insist that the benefit changes introduced some important reforms to help people get into work, as well as significant increases in support for disabled people. Carer’s allowance and disability living allowance increased significantly, and the WorkWell programme introduced at the end of the last Government helped disabled people into work. Some genuinely positive measures were introduced.

[Neil Coyle]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about DLA is interesting, given that his Government and the Lib Dems abolished it. My question is this: has the £12 billion that the Conservatives said they would cut from the Department for Work and Pensions budget during the last election been identified or outlined? What would his party have done and where would those cuts have fallen?

[Danny Kruger]

Let me come on to where I think the Government could be doing a better job.

To conclude my concern with the current plans, we will not see significant savings, as hon. Members have said, because the costs will be shunted elsewhere in the system. We should be very concerned about what will happen to local authority budgets and the NHS. The cause is the Government’s failure to introduce the substantial reforms needed to the way our benefit system, and in fact our wider economy, works.

The solution needs to be a much better assessment system. I am glad that the Government are proposing to review the assessment process for PIP and UC; I think they should be doing that before they introduce these significant cuts to benefits. We need assessments that recognise the fluctuating nature of many of the conditions that people experience. That is particularly the case with mental health, but there are also increasing numbers of young people who come forward with claims and the assessments do not take account of their conditions. We need a more human system, which is why it is important to introduce more face-to-face assessments.

Most importantly, we need more support for people who are far from the labour market. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German); we need a process led by civil society. That was a key part of the reforms introduced under the last Government, but I do not think they went nearly far enough. A whole system of universal support, alongside universal credit, is the way to support people who are far away from the labour market. It is about not just the benefit levels, but the support that is given.

We need to listen to disabled people, and I am grateful for the input that I have had from disabled people’s groups as we look forward to the coming changes. We also need to listen to employers and put them in the driving seat with the reforms. We have a real problem in this country: in the UK, only 12% of employers offer phased return to work support, whereas in Germany that figure is 34%. We could do so much better at helping employers to provide support for people who are trying to get back into work.

I will conclude by stressing that Access to Work needs to be improved. We doubled spending on that in the last Parliament, but more needs to be done. Finally, and most of all, we need a growing economy. With unemployment up, inflation up, debt up and taxes up, we have a disjointed approach. Unless we get properly well-paid jobs, we will always struggle with the welfare bill.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

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

[Rebecca Smith]

I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.

We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.

Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.

New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.

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

It is great to hear that the hon. Member’s party is committed to taking tougher action against benefit fraud after 14 years of failing in office. Does she also welcome longer sentences for fraud in other areas of Government such as covid corruption, including for those Tory donors who committed the crime?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not what we are debating; it is certainly not part of my speech.

Our new clauses 11, 12 and 20 are on the impact on banks. We have concerns about the lack of detail in the Bill when it comes to the eligibility verification mechanism and the requirements that will be put on banks and other financial institutions. We do not have the statutory code of conduct. We do not know what it will cost banks. We do not know the results of any pilot schemes, and we do not know whether the amount recovered will be more than what it costs to administer. Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in our Committee, you would know that the code of conduct was probably the thing most frequently commented on, and the Ministers did a huge amount to reassure us that it was forthcoming—

[Neil Coyle]

And cheesecake!

[Rebecca Smith]

And cheesecake as well—I did not want to say it from the Front Bench, but I have now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to look back at Hansard, but I will never look at a cheesecake in the same way.

The code of conduct was regularly raised in Committee, and we got assurances continually from the Ministers, but we still lack that detail. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments to get clarity, including to require the Government to publish their statutory code of conduct, information on the testing completed to date and an impact assessment on the cost implication of the Bill for banks, as well as an amendment to allow banks to challenge the expansion of these powers if the costs that would be incurred exceed a pre-agreed amount. We know that banks and financial institutions want to help tackle fraud, but measures must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome, or they risk diverting resources from tackling other types of financial crime to meet these requirements. We cannot simply assume that the banks and financial institutions will do what is right; we need to give them an incentive to do it, too.

Our amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 refer to the need for a first-tier tribunal. The Bill takes significant powers for the Secretary of State, giving them the power to review decisions that they, the Cabinet Office or the Public Sector Fraud Authority made. Amendments 16 to 19 change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first tier tribunal, ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just lead back to the organisation that issued the notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will cover the connection between this piece of legislation and the Green Paper shortly.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the outcome for the individual disabled people my hon. Friend is concerned about—the vast majority of whom commit no fraud—be any different if these measures are implemented? They will not be affected, because they are not committing any crime.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

As I have tried to explain, the Bill introduces fundamental changes to the nature of our welfare system and its use.

Welfare Reform

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

No.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to disabled people and their organisations about ending needless, wasteful and extremely expensive repeat reassessments for those with progressive conditions. I hope that has been welcomed by those who have campaigned for it for many years. Will the Green Paper include plans to tackle the disincentives to work for disabled people and others in supported housing? If they work for more than 15 hours a week, it can result in financial penalties. That system was not only ignored by the Conservatives, but actually put in place by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in coalition, when they fumbled the introduction of universal credit. Will this Government fix tax allowances to ensure that work always pays, including for disabled people in supported housing?

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at that. I am sure that he will discuss those issues with my hon. Friend, if he would like that.

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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Smith]

I have heard everything that the Minister has said. However, we will still press new clauses 2 and 15 to a vote.

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

On a point of order, Mr Western. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair; can I ask you a procedure question before we go any further? We have had the presentation of the new clauses, but we have not had any declarations of interest. Given that there are some notable Conservative party donors facing potential fraud charges under covid issues, I just wonder whether that should have been declared before we got to the change in how people in those situations might be punished.

[The Chair]

I understand, although I was not present at the time, that all the declarations were made at the time of evidence being presented to the Committee. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order.

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 (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 (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.