Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Siân Berry Excerpts

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

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.”

This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 41, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(8) This section, so far as it relates to tax years up to and including 2027-28, comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.

(9) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2028-29, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.

(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2027, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(11) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2029-30, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.

(12) Regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2028, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment provides for separate decisions by the House of Commons on the continued effect of Clause 1 for the final two tax years affected.

Amendment 50, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(8) This section comes into force when the conditions in section [Commencement requirements relating to welfare reform] have been met.”

This amendment makes the commencement of Clause 1 conditional on the requirements relating to welfare reform set out in NC12.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) In the table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (amounts of elements)—

(a) before the row showing the amount for limited capability for work and work-related activity (“the existing row”) insert—

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendment 11.

[Siân Berry]

When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.

From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill.

Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for the proposals that she is bringing forward. This is the crux of the Bill. Does she accept that the reason why people get more money when they qualify for the health element of universal credit is that their illness means more expenditure—a certain diet, the need for a warmer home, and so on? Does she accept that halving it to £217 a month will detrimentally affect the most vulnerable people—the very people she says we should be trying to help?

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them.

My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state:

“The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.”

Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations.

I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked

“why impoverishing”

disabled people

“to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]

The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option.

There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle.

Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes.

A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose.

The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I fully agree with the hon. Member on co-production and co-designing any changes that come forward. Does she agree that it is crucial that young people are also included, given the conditions that they can face, and especially given the challenge in moving from children’s disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which the Minister has still not addressed?

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard.

The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).

If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).

I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security.

I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Siân Berry Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

This cruel mistake of a Bill must fall today. The reasons in the amendment tabled by the Green party stand, and with my colleagues I will vote to stop it on Second Reading and support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The proposals are a mess, the timetable is breakneck and other hon. Members have said it right: it is about the spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts and not improvements.

The Government’s actions in that way do not respect sick and disabled people. Way before making any changes to social security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects their rights and needs. Already, three in four people who need to use a food bank have a disabled person in their household. The Bill will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts in support. The Government’s promises of changes from removing to denying support will harm millions in future and create a multilayered mass of injustices. The Bill clearly must fall today.

Instead, why not do what Greens, disabled people’s organisations and many Members across the House have proposed and work with disabled people to co-produce a social security system that is fair, humane and accessible, without pre-emptive criteria? A whole playbook of proposals was put forward by the hon. Member for York Central on tabling her amendment. Why not do that? Why not develop policies that are genuinely good value, which do no harm and which achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people to save money? Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fair taxation on the very wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs hear about every day from the people the measures are aimed at? The least advantaged should not pay, but there are those who clearly should.

I echo many Members across the Chamber when I say that I am sad that a Labour Government have brought us here. This is in such contrast to the post-war principles that the party once stood by, which were about real social security alongside investment in jobs. Shamefully, in its current form, the Bill brings in the largest social security cuts since summer 2015, 10 years ago when George Osborne was Chancellor.

The compromise proposals that mainly protect current claimants are unfair and divisive, and so many will remain unhelped if our honourable colleagues give in. What about the young people whose disabilities are yet to develop and who will need PIP to thrive? What about the people who fall sick or get injured the day after these measures come into effect? And what about the people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS or ME, who are still effectively excluded from the Government’s serious condition criteria because the Bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions?

This whole process has truly scared people, and it has mobilised them. I have heard directly the testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. The Secretary of State knows that I have raised with her the terror that people are feeling right from the start. Will she now apologise for that? I have heard from a roundtable of organisations in Brighton who are supporting people to get by. They have told me how people are using disability benefits to cover just the very basics, such as shortfalls in rent, heating costs and food. I have heard how local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out. Brilliant organisations such as Amaze, Money Advice Plus, St Luke’s and Citizens Advice are already inundated with people concerned for their futures. They want structural barriers and inequalities removed first, but they want investment in people as well.

Today, we must vote down these proposals, so that the Secretary of State can listen and learn and go back and do better. Those who are sick, injured or disabled today and in the future need our solidarity, and they will get it from the Greens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Siân Berry Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring that those who can work have the support to do so. We have clear evidence that being in work is good for people’s health: good work is good for people’s physical and mental health. We are investing extra money into social care, including an additional £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion extra for the NHS. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, as I know she is passionate about ensuring that people have the help, care and support that they need and deserve.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that cutting back on PIP eligibility was in line with post-war Labour principles, but more and more Labour Members are saying that that policy—balancing the Government’s books on the backs of disabled people and those who care for them—is cruel and wrong in principle. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is right?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not recognise the way the hon. Lady framed the Prime Minister’s answer. We want a social security system that protects those who can never and will never work, but disabled people who are out of work and economically inactive are more likely than non-disabled people to say they want to work, and if they are in work, they are half as likely to be poor. We want to shift the focus of the system to do more to help people who can work to do so, and to protect those who cannot, because that is the way that we give people a better future.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Siân Berry Excerpts

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

[Andrew Western]

I assure the right hon. Member on his point with regard to the Scottish Government. However, I will resist new clause 13 because the publication of the DWP’s annual accounts will provide sufficient information about our performance on fraud and error.

Government amendment 42 specifies that the functions of the independent person who can be appointed by the Secretary of State in clause 87 do not apply to devolved benefits unless those are delivered by the Secretary of State under agency agreement. Government amendments 60 and 67 will amend the time required for compliance with a production order served in Scotland. That is to match normal conventions in Scotland. Government amendment 43 ensures that the new debt recovery powers taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill apply only to devolved benefits, while the Secretary of State recovers devolved debts under agency agreements.

Government new clause 18 and Government amendment 33 are consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers under the 2001 Act are unchanged by the Bill. Government amendments 36, 37 and 38 seek to clarify exemptions in the DWP’s information-gathering powers to deliver the intended policy outcome.

A key safeguard in the new DWP information-gathering powers is the exclusion of personal information about users of particular types of free services, such as advocacy and advice services that offer crisis support, for example when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. The intent of the safeguard is to ensure that nobody is deterred from seeking the support they need when they need it. However, the current drafting of that exemption in the Bill as “not for profit” is too broad. That excludes certain information that is very likely to be relevant to a DWP fraud investigation. For example, it prevents the Department from compelling information from housing associations, such as an individual’s address or tenancy, which can be instrumental in proving or disproving a suspicion of fraud.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion?

[Matt Western]

I would be very happy to report to the House on the reasons why we would not do that. I am sure the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her separately to set out how I intend for us to do that. It seems to be a reasonable request.

Returning to my original point, the current drafting would mean that DWP can compel information of that kind from private landlords or estate agents, but not from housing associations. There is an inequity there that we are seeking to address with the amendments, clarifying the drafting and continuing to protect the personal information of service users of crisis support or advocacy services.

The Bill also brings forward new information-gathering powers that govern how DWP-authorised officers can compel information to support an investigation into fraud. It also sets out where information must not be compelled—for example, to protect the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege. Separately, the Bill brings forward powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP-authorised investigators, those tasked with investigating the most serious cases of fraud. It does that by bringing those authorised investigators under the remit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, and by creating similar powers in Scotland for DWP-authorised investigators. That ensures that those investigators are governed by a similar legal framework to other law enforcement bodies that are granted access to use those types of powers.

Government amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the exemptions to information that DWP-authorised officers can compel are not applicable to authorised investigators when using powers of entry, search and seizure. Government amendment 45 mirrors that provision for the PSFA. Those amendments will support effective fraud investigation, as without access, crucial evidence might remain out of reach, slowing down our response to fraud. Those exemptions are important, but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, already provides such restrictions and safeguards by only enabling that information to be compelled with the approval of the courts, coupled with similar conventions that apply for Scotland. The amendment ensures that there is no duplication. The powers in the Bill remain in line with existing conventions, as set out in PACE, and correctly reflect the norms of the Scottish legal system.

Turning to Government amendments 61 to 66, paragraph 10 of schedule 3ZD currently refers to definitions within PACE in relation to special procedure material, confidential professional material, excluded material and items subject to legal privilege.

Government amendments 63 and 51 set out specific definitions to avoid linking provisions that relate solely to Scotland with existing legislation that applies to England and Wales. This also ensures that legal privilege and “items subject to legal privilege” references contained in the schedule are correctly defined for Scotland. Government amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to amendment 63.

Government amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the powers for the DWP under PACE taken by the Bill in schedule 4 are aligned with those of the police and other Government Departments, such as HMRC, and provide a clear legal framework for what evidence can be seized and how it should be handled. Government amendments 47 and 48 mean that DWP-authorised investigators, such as the police, can seize items that are reasonably believed to be evidence of an offence, not just DWP-related offences, when undertaking entry, search and seizure activities in England and Wales. This will mean that potential evidence of any other offence, if discovered in the course of a search, can be preserved and may be seized where it is considered necessary to prevent it from being destroyed or moved. The amendments ensure that the law is clear on how it must be handled and transferred to the most appropriate law enforcement agency in England and Wales. Government amendments 49, 50 and 59 make similar provisions for authorised investigators in Scotland to those I have just described for England and Wales.

Government amendments 57 and 58 clarify how authorised investigators can prevent access to seized evidence from any offence if it may prejudice criminal proceedings in Scotland, by amending the definition of “offence” in schedule 3ZD inserted by schedule 4 of this Act. This mirrors the same provisions that are already in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales.

Government amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 are all minor and technical amendments to correct inconsistencies in terminology. Government amendment 34 is a minor and technical amendment to provide the correct reference to powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to ensure that the powers in Scotland align with those in England and Wales. Government amendment 52 amends the period of time in which a warrant must be exercised to Scotland from three months to one month. This corrects the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.

Government amendment 70 ensures that the court has the power to order a person, having been disqualified, to provide their NI or EU driving licence, as is already the case for those holding a GB licence, under the new debt recovery powers. The Bill as drafted would allow a DWP debtor who evades payment and holds an NI or EU licence to be disqualified from driving. However, it inadvertently limits the court’s ability to order that person to produce their licence unless it was issued in Great Britain, undermining the power and causing administrative difficulties for the court and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Government amendment 70 corrects this and ensures parity between GB, NI and EU driving licences under the powers in schedule 6.

Government amendments 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 ensure that the application and limitation period in clause 99 follows the policy intention that the PSFA can investigate fraud and recover debt in England and Wales. Government amendment 44 also ensures that the DWP’s debt recovery powers in this Bill are not limited in Scotland to the usual five-year time limits in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. This makes it clear that the longer 20-year recovery period in Scotland applies to such provisions introduced or amended by this Bill. As I have set out, the intent behind these amendments is to ensure the delivery of the intended policy intent or to ensure the correct territorial application of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

There is a lot I could say, but I will mainly just commend to Members my new clause 7, which would remove official error from the most punitive measures in the second part of the Bill. I spoke against the whole suite of intrusive legislation in the second part of the Bill on Second Reading, and Green MPs still oppose it now. I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I will be supporting a number of other amendments that I also backed there, alongside the hon. Members from both sides of the House who proposed them. On Second Reading and in Committee I described how the Bill treats already stigmatised benefit claimants as suspects, not citizens, through blanket intrusion and surveillance. It is absolutely wrong that this legislation should go through in this form. I think the first part works, but the second part is absolutely out of order.

New clause 7, tabled in my name, is about fair play. It would bring a test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, so that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let us be in no doubt, mistakes by the DWP can have huge financial and psychological impacts on people who are receiving benefits, and the risk of harm is particularly acute with official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating. I point out that new clause 7 is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act back in 2012, when the Government first started to recover universal credit overpayments.

Turning to a few of the other important amendments before the House today, I restate my support for amendments 2 and 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). These seek simply to remove the totally indefensible bank spying powers. I express my support for amendments 10 and 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), which rightly seek to do away with the driving disqualification powers, which I have previously opposed. I also put on record my support for amendment 11, also in the name of the hon. Member for Poole, which rightly limits the banks’ spying powers to cases with existing suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has taken forward amendments 8 and 9, which I tabled in Committee. My Green party colleagues and I will also be voting for new clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay, on carer’s allowance and lessons learned.

It matters when we treat people who need a safety net as suspects. It matters when Governments invade privacy with a blanket intrusion that affects older people, disabled people and other minorities in a disproportionate way. And it matters that the powers proposed today extend to impoverishing citizens and punishing them for our own Department’s mistakes. Treating people with humanity and due process should be the default setting, not these intrusive new blanket laws, and I hope that Parliament will ask Ministers to dial up the competence, dial down the stigma and think again.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.

Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.

Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is

“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.

Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?

Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Siân Berry Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to this debate. I can absolutely give him the reassurance he seeks.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Earlier in the week, I wrote to the Secretary of State, asking her to confirm that the plans would not go ahead if the proposals were assessed as being harmful to disabled people. The equality analysis says that the families who will lose out are estimated to represent 20% of all families who report having someone with a disability in the household. Given that PIP is not related to work, and that the money cannot be made up through work changes, does the Minister agree that proceeding is not acceptable when there is this level of harm?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The assessment published yesterday is that 90% of those receiving the daily living PIP component will continue to receive that benefit after the changes take effect, so I think the concern that the hon. Lady raises is not entirely appropriate.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail], and to ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent. I also remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It is going to be a busy morning. Please speak through the Chair, as usual, and refrain from using “you” unless you wish to speak to me.

New Clause 1

Overpayments made as a result of official error

“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘Subject to subsection (1A), the’.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.’”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure speak under your chairship again, Mr Western. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment. In short, it would bring the test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, meaning that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

Let me provide some background on why the new clause is needed. According to Department for Work and Pensions data, in 2023-24 the best part of 700,000 of the new universal credit official error overpayment debts entered into the DWP’s debt management system were caused not by fraud or claimant error but by Government mistakes. Unlike for many other benefits, the DWP can recover official error universal credit overpayments from claimants. This power was introduced through the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and represented a significant change to the position that previously applied to most legacy benefits.

When concerns were raised at the time, assurances were provided by the then Employment Minister that the DWP did

“not have to recover money from people where official error has been made”

and that

“we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 1019.]

However, Public Law Project research shows that the DWP’s default approach is to recover all official error overpayments. Relief is dependent on individuals navigating a difficult and inaccessible process to request a waiver. In 2022, only 26 waiver requests were granted.

DWP mistakes matter. The financial and psychological impacts of overpayment debt recovery on individual claimants can be severe. The research I have mentioned found that the recovery of debts, including official error overpayments, by deductions from universal credit led to a third of survey respondents becoming destitute. The risk of harm is particularly acute for official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating, so they can lead to sudden, unexpected reductions in income that impact existing fixed commitments and carefully planned budgets.

The recovery of official error overpayments brought an added sense of injustice, with individuals finding themselves in debt due to a DWP error over which they had no control. For example, one claimant was overpaid universal credit because the DWP had failed to consider income from her widow’s pension. She had informed the DWP that she received it and was assured that it would not affect her claim. She relied on that assurance and spent the money on daily living expenses. Four years later, the DWP told her that it would be recovering the resulting overpayment of £7,258.08. Aside from the significant financial impact, the stress associated with recovery impacted her mental health. She found herself constantly thinking about the overpayment and how she would pay it back, which in turn impacted on her physical health. She was left anxious that mistakes would be made again, leading to her incurring debt that she had no power to avoid.

Recovery often puts individuals who have relied on payments in good faith in financially precarious situations, forcing them to make difficult choices about sacrificing essentials. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that the current standard universal credit allowance is not sufficient to cover the cost of essentials. In this already difficult context, households that are repaying overpayment debt can lose up to 25% of their standard allowance each month.

People often base key life decisions and financial planning on information provided by DWP officials about their entitlement to universal credit. An official error universal credit overpayment can also have a knock-on effect on people’s entitlement to other support, such as council tax reduction. I am sure the DWP does not want to be responsible for pushing someone into further financial hardship. We can prevent this harm from occurring in the first place with my new clause, which would mean that overpayments can be recovered only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that they had been overpaid.

The new clause is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act. Under the new clause, DWP officials would themselves consider the fairness of recovering an official error overpayment before any recovery was initiated. Increasing protections against the recovery of overpayments would also create a strong incentive to reduce the rate of DWP errors in the first instance, thereby contributing to a more accurate and better functioning welfare system from the outset.

The Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to proactively address a harmful and unfair process that affects hundreds of thousands of claimants each year, easing the financial burden of debt on claimants who have done nothing wrong and encouraging the DWP to get payments right first time. I hope that the Minister will respond to my points on new clause 1, and I sincerely hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill progresses.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. This is the first time that I have spoken to a new clause in Committee. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would amend the Bill so that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can be recovered only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

I am interested to know how the claimant could reasonably be expected to realise that the amount that they had received was an overpayment, as that would be the test for whether that person becomes liable for repaying the amount. If payments are made to an appointee’s bank account, do they become liable for spotting the overpayment under this new clause? Would the amount have to be repaid only if both the person eligible for the payment and their appointee realised the overpayment?

Are there figures on how much money is lost and recovered due to error? Do we therefore know how much the new clause would cost the DWP? Underpayments in taxes are recovered by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the following months or years even where the individual is not at fault, and it is not clear why universal credit claimants should be any different. It would help if the Minister could explain to the Committee how, in the case of overpayments, a repayment plan will be put in place that is manageable for the person making the payments, and how that will be assessed.

We would be better off focusing on minimising official errors in the first place. What work is the DWP doing to better guard against overpayments, given that the overpayment rate for universal credit was 12.4% or £6.46 billion in the financial year ending 2024, compared with 12.7% or £5.5 billion in the financial year ending 2023? I argue that we need to focus on ensuring that overpayments are not being made, but once the error has been made, particularly because it is so costly to the taxpayer, we should try to ensure that the money is recouped.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Western. Before I come to my general comments on the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, I will attempt to respond to some of the questions that we have heard.

On how we can assure ourselves that people could reasonably have known, this assessment is made by our specialist investigation teams, who do this day in, day out. There is a balance of probabilities that they would apply to instances such as that. It is a process that has been in place for years. On whether an appointee would be liable for an overpayment, yes, they would. How much is official error? It is approximately 0.3% of all benefit payments. About £800 million is the most recently available annual figure.

On how a repayment plan is agreed—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Torbay made also—we again have a specialist team who calculate this. We have a vulnerability framework should that be required. All repayment requests are done on an affordable basis. As we heard last week, the specifics around the new debt recovery power make attempts, throughout the process, to agree an affordable repayment plan. The limits that the Bill would put in place would be not more than 40% in the case of an ongoing deduction and 20% in cases of error. On the point about recovery causing destitution, which the hon. Gentleman also made, he will have noted that towards the end of last year, the Department announced its new fair repayment rates, reducing the amount of deduction that can be made from benefits down to 15%. As I have just outlined, further provision is made where we are looking to take these new powers to deduct directly from bank accounts.

To return to the point that the hon. Member for South West Devon made about prevention of overpayments, the eligibility verification measure is intended to help us to identify fraud, particularly in relation to capital, and people who have been abroad longer than they should be, in terms of aligning that with their eligibility for benefits, and we think that it will enable us to identify error overpayments sooner as well. Of course, people are regularly reminded to update their circumstances also. A range of mechanisms are in place already to assist with the identification of overpayments. We are not complacent. We know that there are too many overpayments through official and claimant error, just as there is far too much fraud in the Department. That is why we are taking many of the steps identified and outlined in this Bill.

Before I turn to my comments about new clause 1 specifically, let me just make a correction to something that I told the Committee last week. I said that the minimum administrative penalty that can be offered, which receives a four-week loss of benefit, is £65. I misspoke and I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record and state that the amount is £350.

New clause 1 seeks to amend existing recovery legislation, to limit when overpayments of universal credit and new-style benefits caused by official error could be recovered. Specifically, those official error overpayments would be recoverable only where the claimant could have been reasonably expected to realise they were not entitled to the overpayments in question at the time they received them. This Government are committed to protecting taxpayers’ money and ensuring that we can recover in a fair and affordable way money owed. The debt recovery powers in the Bill apply to all debt that Parliament has determined can be pursued. Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 under the coalition Government, made any overpayment of universal credit, new style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance in excess of entitlement recoverable. That includes overpayments arising as a result of official error.

Official error can arise for a number of different reasons. Some errors, for example, occur as a result of the flexibility of the universal credit system. Unlike the tax credit system it replaces, UC works on a monthly cycle of assessment periods. It is to be expected that on occasion, corrections or changes take place over assessment periods. The system quickly rectifies these “errors” in the next assessment period and it is vital that this functionality is maintained. In these instances, the customer is not worse off as, over the course of subsequent assessment periods, they receive the correct amount on average. It is also helpful to explain that under existing departmental processes, customers have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration of their benefit entitlement as well as the amount and period of any subsequent overpayment. Following that, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal, should they still disagree with the Department’s decision.

We recognise that overpayments, however they arise, cause anxiety for our customers. The Department’s policy is therefore to recover debts as quickly and cost effectively as possible without causing undue financial hardship to customers. DWP’s overall approach to recovery balances the need to protect public funds by maintaining recovery levels, while providing a compassionate service to all customers regardless of their circumstances. The Department’s policy is therefore to agree affordable and sustainable repayment plans. The debt recovery measures in the Bill, however, are last-resort powers for debtors who are no longer on benefits or in pay-as-you-earn employment and are persistently evading debt recovery. These powers apply across all types of debt.

All our communications to our customers signpost to independent debt advice and money guidance, and we heard from the Money and Pensions Service in our evidence sessions about how strong the partnership working between the Department and debt sector is. DWP is committed to working with anyone who is struggling to repay their debt and customers are never made to pay more than they can afford. Where a customer feels they cannot afford the proposed rate of recovery, they are encouraged to contact the Department to discuss their repayment terms. The rate of repayment can be reduced or recovery suspended for an agreed period, and the Department may also consider refunding the higher deduction that has been made. The Department’s overpayment notifications have been updated to make sure customers are aware they can request a reduction in their repayment terms. In exceptional circumstances, the Department has the discretion to waive recovery of the debt, in line with the Treasury’s “managing public money” guidance. In doing so a range of factors are considered including the circumstances in which the overpayment arose.

Finally, I have listened to and take seriously the concerns from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As the Committee is aware, the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at the policy design of universal credit to ensure outcomes that tackle poverty and help people to manage their money better. I will pass the concerns raised by the hon. Lady on to him, but having outlined the reasons against it, I will resist new clause 1.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the Minister for taking seriously the concerns I raised. I will not press the new clause further today, but I hope that it will be looked at seriously in the next stages of the Bill, and that we can discuss this further in the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Offence of fraud against a public authority

“(1) A person who—

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.”—(Rebecca Smith.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (Dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

‘(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’

(3) In section 112 (False representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

‘(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

New clause 12 is about financial exclusion, as the hon. Member for South West Devon said. The Liberal Democrats’ concern is that, as this morning goes on, a number of safeguards are looking to be—for want of a better phrase—baked into the system by legislation, yet according to the Minister the only thing baked into the system is the involvement of human beings. That causes me, and I am sure other colleagues, concerns.

If an annual review were to take place of the Bill’s impact on people facing financial exclusion, conducted by the independent person appointed with the Minister publishing and sharing that with Parliament, we could ensure a level of transparency. While many of us would acknowledge that the Ministers in place at the moment are well-meaning individuals, who knows where we will be in 10 years’ time? This legislation needs to stand the test of time, so baking in these safeguards would be a positive way forward. I hope that the Minister will welcome that. I look forward to his comments.

[Siân Berry]

I have a lot of sympathy with both new clauses. It is really important that we look closely, as we are mandated to do, at the impact of the Bill on the people whose examples have been raised throughout the debate. The Minister should answer the questions asked by hon. Members, and if the Government will not do what is proposed in the new clauses, he should say what the Government will do instead.

[Andrew Western]

I begin with new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for South West Devon. I share her view that where the powers in the Bill are exercised, there should be a consideration of the vulnerabilities that customers may have, whether they be the customers of data holders such as banks or customers of Government —for example, DWP customers. However, I do not think that the new clause is necessary given the existing safeguards, oversight and reporting provisions in the Bill.

The Bill includes a number of protections for vulnerable people, including affordability considerations and protections for persons experiencing hardship, rights of review and appeal, and independent oversight. Those provisions have already been debated and considered by the Committee, so I will not labour the point, but I will comment on the provisions in the Bill for independent oversight, as they will play an important role here.

Welfare Reform

Siân Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I have heard nothing today that shows that the Government have listened to disabled people. Any changes to PIP should have been co-produced, but this week, 25 disabled people’s groups and charities wrote to Ministers begging for their opinions to be included, and not as an afterthought. Will the Secretary for State explain why disabled people are feeling so disregarded and scapegoated, and why impoverishing them to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax?

Oral Answers to Questions

Siân Berry Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to provide proper support, which existed in the past, but disappeared after 2010. We want to provide that support again because so many people would thrive if they had it. At the moment there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who would love to be in a job if they just had the support. We will provide it.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

For weeks, the Government’s active trailing of welfare cuts has generated genuine fear. Disabled people in Brighton Pavilion are writing to me in terror. Will the Secretary of State apologise for this and reassure the public that benefit changes will not take place this calendar year or without parliamentary votes in this House?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

First, I recognise that there has been a good deal of anxiety, and I regret that. But there will not be long to wait. The proposals will soon become clear. The hon. Lady will welcome a great deal of the changes that we want to make.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Siân Berry Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue that is incredibly important to thousands of women and their families in my constituency. I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners who are in the Public Gallery, and all my constituents who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue.

This debate is about justice, fairness and doing what is right. Liberal Democrats have said all along that we support fair and fast compensation for all the women who were unfairly impacted by the changes to the state pension age. They include my constituent Mary; instead of retiring and receiving a pension in 2016 when she reached 60, as she had been expecting to do all her working life, she found herself having to live on virtually nothing for six years. Ill health following breast cancer, combined with the side effects of chemotherapy, left her too tired to do very much at all.

Then there is Karin. Karin’s life was upended when she took voluntary redundancy in 2016, believing she had three years until her state pension, only to discover that she had six years to wait. The unexpected delay left her struggling financially while caring for an elderly mother, a severely disabled sister and young grandchildren. Karin is deeply disillusioned with the Government’s decision to ignore the ombudsman’s finding, and frankly, who can blame her? She feels that lifelong injustices faced by women of her generation—from being denied equal workplace rights after having children, to the state pension age changes—have been systematically ignored.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the WASPI women are right to use the word “gaslighting” to describe the Government’s suggestion that there is no problem here and that everybody knew? They are not standing by the pledge they made in opposition; it is as if that pledge was never made. That strikes harshly at women who have spent their whole lives facing other aspects of sexism, as she describes.

[Liz Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I will come on to that later. Mary and Karin, like so many of my constituents who were impacted by the changes to the state pension age, feel incredibly let down by the Government. After being ignored for so long by the previous Conservative Government, they really believed the MPs who told them that they supported their claim for fair and fast compensation.

The Government should be compensating these women because it is the right thing to do. Many of the women in my constituency who were impacted found themselves in dire circumstances with little to live on. They were forced to take low-paid jobs to make ends meet, and in some cases they turned to food banks. These are not wealthy women, and the unexpected loss of income and the fact that they had to work much longer than they were expecting has had a huge impact on their lives and those of their families. That is in addition to having to cope with the loss of the winter fuel allowance, which is particularly challenging when it has been so bitterly cold. Many of the women are also unpaid carers.

There is also the wider issue that these women feel that they do not matter to this Government—that because they are women of a certain age, they are somehow invisible. These women were born in the 1950s. They spent years working and raising families, and many of them will now have caring responsibilities. Frankly, the way that they have been treated by successive Governments is appalling. They deserve respect and to be treated with dignity.

This issue has been incredibly badly handled by the Government. We all recognise that the previous Conservative Government left the country in an absolute mess and that there are many issues that need fixing—including, most urgently, the NHS and social care—but that does not make this head-in-the-sand approach right. The parliamentary ombudsman said very clearly that there had been maladministration, and the Secretary of State and the Government accepted that. To then turn around and say, “We are sorry about what happened, but we just don’t have the money to compensate you,” is simply not good enough. These women feel betrayed. Telling them that 90% of them knew about the changes, when the ombudsman found that that was not the case, is gaslighting. Indeed, the ombudsman stated that 43% of the women knew; that is quite a difference.

If the Government continue to ignore the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s recommendation for compensation, it raises the question: what is the point of the ombudsman? Where else can people turn if they are victims of maladministration or wrongdoing and feel that no one is listening to them? Many women maintain that they did not receive letters at all, and the Department for Work and Pensions does not have a record of who it wrote to. I can believe that; if any Member has had dealings with the DWP, either as a private citizen or on behalf of constituents, they will know what a nightmare it can be. I suspect that if we asked many people, even now, they probably would not know the exact date when they could retire and receive the state pension.

I urge the Government to reconsider their response, and to look at providing a scheme of compensation starting with those on pension credit. We know that the Government are facing incredibly difficult challenges, but ignoring the voices of thousands of women is a huge mistake. This issue is not going to go away.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to speak to this minor amendment. I just wanted to point something out about the wording of amendment 36. In clause 98(2) there are two instances of the letter (a). I know which (a) the Government intend the amendment to refer to, but I wondered whether the wording could be clarified.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out. I will take advice on whether a further amendment may be required but, as she says, it does appear obvious what I mean when I refer to that measure.

On the comments from the hon. Member for South West Devon, we want to make a change so that only the most serious cases fall foul of the loss-of-benefit penalty. That increases hardship for people but, when it comes to our ability to reclaim money, in practical terms it means we would have to wait four weeks before we could start deducting from a person’s benefits.

To to give some reassurance about thresholds, were we to consider that somebody’s fraud, even in a lower-value case, was particularly outrageous—of course, that is a judgment for our investigators based on the sorts of things they see each and every day—we do retain the ability to go straight to prosecution, particularly if we think the fraud is part of something more serious or organised.

The value of the penalty is £65, but if someone loses four weeks’ benefit, as at the moment, the impact is clearly more significant. I accept that, but I think there is a strong question of proportionality here, and of the need to prevent somebody from falling into further poverty —and potentially as a consequence of that being pushed into wider activity that may be, shall we say, unhelpful.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gerald Jones.)