Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, and I am going to address that point shortly.

It is not the purpose of banks to act as an arm of the state, and compelling them to do so sets a very dangerous precedent that we in this House need to be aware of. We also know that organised crime groups, which are responsible for more than £7 billion of large-scale fraud, will evade detection by spreading funds across multiple accounts, beyond the reach of the algorithmic scanning that will be used to flag overpayments. It will be welfare recipients who are caught up in the net of bank surveillance, regardless of whether they are suspected of fraudulent activity.

Richard Burgon Portrait Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable—

Caroline Nokes Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. That was a very long intervention. Perhaps we would be better off going back to Neil Duncan-Jordan.