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

Sally Jameson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

Q What is your view on its proportionality as a direct response to what has been a £35 billion challenge for the Department since covid? Given the increase in prevalence of both fraud and error—particularly fraud, which is estimate to have cost upwards of £7 billion—do you think that is a material consideration when assessing proportionality?

Ellen Lefley: When I speak about proportionality, the degree of loss is relevant, but there is no question but that the economic wellbeing of the country is a legitimate aim. On whether measures are proportionate to achieving that aim, we must consider not only whether there is any reasonable suspicion, but the degree of external oversight. The Bill includes that consideration, and there are various ways in which some of the powers are subject to independent review.

We have some suggestions as to how those independent review mechanisms can be a stronger safeguard and therefore make the measures more proportionate. For example, the independent review mechanisms seem to have the ability to access information but no power to demand it. That raises a query as to transparency and the full ability of the independent reviewer in different circumstances to meet their objectives. Also, when an independent reviewer lays their report before Parliament with recommendations and those recommendations are not going to be adopted, it might be helpful for there to be an obligation on the Department to provide reasons why not. That would be a more transparent way of ensuring that the oversight measure is as effective as intended.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q To follow on from the Minister, clearly there is a lot of nervousness from you about looking into people’s finances to detect fraud and error. From your perspective, what would be the alternative? The country cannot afford to lose another £35 billion, so we need to find a way to ensure that does not happen. Given the level of nervousness that you have shown, what would you suggest that we do instead?

Ellen Lefley: On the £35 billion figure, I think the benefits fraud and error figure was around £10 billion, and I think £7 billion can be shown to be fraud. I am sorry if I have got that wrong.

[Andrew Western]

Q That was since the pandemic. The overall figure is £35 billion, and last year it was £9.7 billion.

Ellen Lefley: I am grateful. It is a difficult one. For example, we could have almost zero crime in this country if everyone’s house had 24/7 surveillance installed. There will always be a way of decreasing privacy to increase state surveillance and therefore reduce unwanted behaviour, but the balance needs to be struck. Justice’s view is that when the state is getting new powers to investigate people’s private affairs, the balance is struck by having that reasonable suspicion threshold, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed. That ensures that the powers given to the state in any primary legislation are not open to abuse or arbitrariness. Of course, the laws in the statute book must be written narrowly so that they protect rights on the face of it, rather than being written broadly and relying on the self-restraint of future Administrations to exercise them proportionately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Q It would still be helpful to have something in writing, even in advance of each issue that we can scrutinise, because we are being asked to scrutinise something in its fullness without a level of detail. Anyway, I will leave that there, because it has been covered enough.

Now the question that I was coming to, if I may. The state pension has been explicitly excluded from the eligibility verification measure, and the three means-tested benefits are the initial focus. I wonder why the Government have left it open to include other non-means-tested benefits in future, and what data would the Government ask for in those cases?

Andrew Western: The state pension is excluded—because of the particular nature of the eligibility criteria for state pension and the consequently incredibly small amount of fraud that we see on it—considering the number of people we would have to bring into scope of the measure to go after what is a tiny amount of fraud. It is not considered proportionate to do that, as far as I am concerned.

The determination that we have made as to the three benefits that should initially be in scope is entirely predicated on current levels of fraud and error. We want to retain the ability, if necessary, to bring other benefits into scope, should there be a surge in fraud in those benefit areas. We do not anticipate this, but we want to future-proof the Bill as best as we can, should there be any material changes in the level of fraud in those areas. For instance, if we consider the tiny amount of fraud in the state pension versus the £1 in every £8 currently spent in universal credit that turns out to be fraud or error, it is clearly right to distinguish between benefits and consequently to have some in scope and others not.

[Sally Jameson]

Q What happens when a flag on an account is made under the EVM, and is that sufficient to find that someone has committed fraud?

Andrew Western: I answered this slightly in response to Mr Payne, but the flag in of itself does not mean that someone has been found guilty of fraud. A bank indicating to us that someone has above a certain amount of capital in their account does not mean, “Job done, box ticked”, or that person receives news that they have been found to have committed fraud, or that we then go through the penalty process with that individual. It would be referred to the most appropriate team for investigation—in the case of capital fraud, the team that looks at that particular type of fraud.

The principal other type of fraud that we think would be in scope is people who have been out of the country for longer than they are allowed to be as a condition of their benefit. Again, it is really important that we do not automatically penalise somebody for having done that, because it could be on grounds of a health emergency abroad. I had somebody in my advice surgery recently whose flights had been cancelled due to an environmental issue in the country that he was seeking to return from. It is really important that this is triaged to a human investigator to look into what the nature of the flag is, what the benefit eligibility criterion that we suspect may not have been satisfied is, and then take the appropriate steps needed to establish whether there is any legitimate reason for that.

[Siân Berry]

Q I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. Minister Western, are you open to a negative eventual human rights verdict on this? Many witnesses have said they need answers from the code of conduct, and we know that rights around data protection, privacy and discrimination are engaged by this. If, once we have seen the details of the code of practice, there is a negative verdict on any of those, are you open to changing or withdrawing parts of the Bill, for example by bringing reasonable suspicion to the front of the process instead of the end?

Andrew Western: We would need, at that point, to take advice—legal advice, primarily—if there was that level of concern around any human rights impact. I would not want to second-guess, but certainly, in the instance where those views have been put forward and the legal advice suggested that they were valid, then clearly we would need to take appropriate action to ensure that the Bill is legal and satisfactory.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Sally Jameson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Bill sets out a clear agenda that this Government will be tough on fraud. It will ensure fairness for benefit claimants and offer confidence to the taxpayer. When it comes to taxpayers’ money, fraud and waste cannot and must not be tolerated. I am pleased that the Government are taking that approach, and I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill.

I was appalled, frankly, to learn that a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been lost to fraud and error since the pandemic. I think of my constituents in Doncaster Central, of how desperately our hospital needs refurbishing, of how many children live below the poverty line, and of how many of my constituents are stuck on NHS waiting lists. I am outraged at just how much money, which could have helped to solve those problems, was instead drained by fraudsters, sometimes on a large and organised scale, and by the careless errors of the previous Government. With these measures, this Government will protect claimants by preventing errors earlier, ensure that our benefits system works for those who claim benefits they so desperately need, and give taxpayers the right to see their hard-earned money spent well.

I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing the Department’s search and seizure powers in line with those of HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, and I am pleased to see the Department’s commitment to ensuring strong safeguards on those powers, including the appointment of an independent body to conduct independent inspections of the Department’s investigations. We must ensure that the tough measures we introduce to recoup taxpayers’ money are met with equally tough scrutiny and safeguards. I hope that will remain a priority as the Bill passes through the stages of this House.

I have no doubt that some Opposition Members will claim that they introduced measures to crack down on benefit fraud. Indeed, they did—eventually. At the very tail end of the last Parliament, they tagged measures on to the end of another Bill, which never passed. It has fallen to us, as it has in many other areas, to take the necessary action. Whether it is benefit fraud or fraudulent covid contracts, these are not victimless crimes. It is public services and our constituents who lose out. We need to get on with this job. We cannot afford to lose more public money, which our constituents pay for with their taxes and should feel the benefit of.

Tough measures, tough sanctions and tough safeguards are the key to ensuring that our welfare system is fair for its genuine claimants and robust enough to ensure that taxpayer money goes where it is supposed to go: to the people and the services that need it most.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sally Jameson Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We do keep the asylum process under review, but I would be happy to look at the details of this particular case and perhaps meet the hon. Lady and her constituent, if that would be helpful.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

An astonishing £35 billion has been lost to benefit fraud and errors since the pandemic. Will the Minister outline the plans and the timeline for recouping that money?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the enormous cost to the Department—upwards of £35 billion—of fraud since the pandemic. She will be pleased to know that the fraud, error and debt Bill is due to come to the House early in the new year. This Government are serious about tackling fraud; it is just a shame that we inherited the mess we did.

Income Tax (Charge)

Sally Jameson Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud that our Labour Government are taking crucial steps towards fixing the foundations of our economy, while protecting working people and supporting struggling households. We were elected on a manifesto of change, and last week we proved to our constituents that we will make good on that promise.

What is so important, and what struck me about the Budget, is the commitment to justice—justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, who will now receive the compensation they deserve, and, crucially for my constituents in Doncaster Central, justice for our former mineworkers on the mineworkers’ pension scheme who will now get the money that is rightfully theirs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) for her long-standing campaign on this matter. Having spoken not too long ago to some miners from Markham Main, who powered our country, I know how much it means to right that historical injustice, and I am proud that it is a Labour Government that have done so.

I am also thrilled to see our Labour Government progress our industrial future and commit such a high level of investment in green energy projects. That funding will support those skilled job opportunities that industrial cities like Doncaster need. The British jobs bonus will help support clean power businesses that offer good jobs, such as Clean Power Hydrogen in Doncaster, which not only offers skilled work opportunities but supports the production of green hydrogen. The Budget offers Doncaster the chance to once again power the country and bolsters our industrial offering. The green transition is not just about climate change and protecting our planet; it also provides an opportunity for growth, offers a skills revolution and provides opportunities that will keep our city and country powered well into the future.

Growth in cities like mine will be critical in the coming years for us to set up an economy of the future that benefits every corner and region of the country. I will, of course, be fighting over the coming days, weeks, months and years to ensure that Doncaster and South Yorkshire businesses get their fair share, because the funding and prosperity we deserve was long denied under the last Government. We deserve to thrive, to be a part of Britain’s drive to become a clean energy superpower and to dominate the global race in that growing, vital industry.