Andrew Western MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I share the support expressed by the hon. Member for Horsham for the algorithmic transparency recording standard as a framework for capturing information about algorithmic tools, including AI systems, and ensuring that public sector bodies openly publish information about the algorithmic tools used in decision-making processes that affect members of the public. However, I do not think the new clause is a necessary addition to the Bill, and I will explain why. First, all central Government Departments, including the DWP and the Cabinet Office, are already required to comply with the standard as appropriate. We are committed to ensuring that there is appropriate public scrutiny of algorithmic tools that have a significant influence on a decision-making process with public effect, or that directly interact with the public. We have followed and will continue to follow the guidance published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on this to ensure the necessary transparency and scrutiny. Secondly, I remind the Committee that although the DWP and PSFA are improving their access to relevant data through the Bill, we are not introducing any new use of machine learning or automated decision making in the Bill measures. I can continue to assure the House that, as is the case now, a human will always be involved in decisions that affect benefit entitlement. Thirdly, although I do not wish to labour the point yet again, I remind the Committee that the Bill introduces new and important safeguards, including reporting mechanisms and independent oversight in the Bill, demonstrating our commitment to transparency and ensuring that the powers will be used proportionately and effectively. The DWP takes data protection very seriously and will always comply with data protection law. Any information obtained will be kept confidential and secure, in line with GDPR.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Jobcentres: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is correct to raise the issue of jobcentres reaching out to local employers. We know that we have a significant issue with whether the jobcentre is the vehicle of choice to advertise local job opportunities. That is a long-standing issue that we are keen to address. I am delighted to congratulate his local jobcentre on the work it is doing to promote the jobs fair.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Jobcentres: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Supporting everyone to find good, meaningful work and helping them to progress is vital for economic growth. That includes disabled people who want to work and contribute, but who are let down by the current system. Jobcentres have a key role to play in that, and through creating a new jobs and careers service, we will help more people get into work and get on at work, supporting our ambition for an 80% employment rate.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Jobcentres: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct to highlight the importance of tackling economic inactivity in order to drive up economic growth. This Government understand the negative effects that unemployment can have on mental health, particularly among young people, which can impact future prospects. The youth guarantee will help address barriers faced by young people to ensure that they can access quality training opportunities and apprenticeships or help to find work, boosting their confidence and giving them the very best chance of success in the workplace.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Welfare Fraud: Serious and Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  The Department works collaboratively with other Departments and with law enforcement agencies on investigations of benefit fraud carried out by organised criminal gangs. New powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which was mentioned earlier by the Minister for Employment, will strengthen our ability to tackle organised crime by modernising and enhancing our investigation powers, granting DWP officials powers of search and seizure, and ensuring that those who defraud the public sector face appropriate consequences.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Welfare Fraud: Serious and Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The eligibility verification measure in the new Bill will do just that, providing a crucial data feed to help us identify fraud that relates to pension credit as well as to universal credit and employment and support allowance. This will flag up claimants who are potentially in breach of eligibility under capital and abroad criteria, so that we can start to lower the unacceptable level of fraud and protect the public purse.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Supporting Care Leavers into Employment · Hansard source

  More

  The Department supports care leavers aged 16 to 24 through an extensive range of interventions to help them into employment. For example, care leavers who start an apprenticeship are signposted to a £3,000 bursary from their training provider, and they can still receive universal credit if they are on a low income. More broadly, under the new youth guarantee, all young people aged 18 to 21 in England, including care leavers, will have access to support to enter employment, education or training opportunities.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Supporting Care Leavers into Employment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to highlight those statistics. The number of care leavers not in education, employment or training is absolutely unacceptable, and he will be stunned to hear that I am in full agreement with him.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady may know, the Department recently consulted on a range of proposals for future improvements to the child maintenance service, such as how we can protect people from financial abuse and better support victims of domestic abuse. I am obviously not familiar with the specifics of the case she references, but I would be more than happy to follow up if she writes to me about it.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this issue falls under the umbrella of wider fraud. We inherited an appalling level of fraud in the welfare system under the previous Government. Our fraud Bill goes some way to tackling that, as part of a broader package of £8.6 billion—the largest ever package for tackling fraud.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This straightforward amendment is a minor and technical change that looks to update section 6B of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 by removing the phrase “the corresponding provision”, which will no longer be needed once clause 98 is agreed, and substituting in appropriate wording. Section 6B, as enacted, references two Acts in which a penalty is defined in legislation and which would attract the loss-of-benefit penalty. The first is the Social Security Administration Act and the second is the equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland. Clause 98 will remove reference to one of those Acts—the Social Security Administration Act 1992—to ensure that the loss-of-benefit sanction is no longer applied if an administrative penalty has been offered by the DWP and accepted by a benefit claimant. Doing so will mean there will no longer be corresponding legislation in section 6B(2)(a) of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, as it will reference only Northern Ireland legislation. I assure the Committee that the amendment is minor and technical and will have no operational impact on the remaining provisions in the 2001 Act. Clause 98 removes the loss-of-benefit provisions in cases where an administrative penalty has been offered and accepted as an alternative to prosecution. As it stands, the acceptance of an administrative penalty is compounded by a further four-week suspension of certain benefit payments. The suspension of benefits is made in addition to the acceptance of the administrative penalty and alongside the obligation to repay the overpayment. By removing the four-week loss of benefit in these cases, the clause allows for a more proportionate approach to less serious, lower-value fraud and to first-time offenders. However, the loss-of-benefit penalty is not being removed in its entirety: it will still apply in cases that are convicted in court, with a potential loss of benefit of up to three years. Limiting the loss-of-benefit penalty to convicted cases will ensure that only the most serious cases of fraud face the harshest consequences, without imposing unnecessarily harsh sanctions on lower-level offenders. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Where proportionality kicks in is already established in the Department. We have trained investigators who ascertain whether we are looking at deliberate fraud, its severity, and what is therefore the appropriate mechanism to seek recourse. We are talking about administrative penalties for situations in which we consider there to be a clear case of fraud, not error, so proportionality will not really be changed by the Bill. What will change is our ability to extend the existing processes to non-benefit payments. The example of a non-benefit payment that we use most routinely is a payment from the kickstart scheme, which came about at the end of the pandemic and which I think it is fair to say was open to abuse. We saw some particularly egregious examples of that, so we want to make sure that any similar grant schemes—as opposed to benefit schemes—are within scope of these powers. On the point that the hon. Member for South West Devon made about only three benefits being in scope of the Bill, that is only as it pertains to the eligibility verification measure. All benefits are in scope of the Bill more broadly.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairship, Sir Desmond. After that remarkably collegiate agreement on the most controversial item of today’s business—I hope—I turn to clause 92. The clause provides a vital safeguard for the new debt recovery measures. It inserts new section 80D into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, making provision for a code of practice. In the clause, we have made it a requirement that the code sets out how and when the Department for Work and Pensions will exercise its functions under direct deduction and driving disqualification powers, as well as its approach to penalties for non-compliance by banks, and how any information obtained will be used and processed. The code will also include further information on how safeguards and other provisions in the Bill will be applied, such as those on reasonable opportunity to settle the debt, and how those struggling with debt can be signposted to independent debt advice and money guidance. We recognise the importance of transparency in the use of the new debt recovery measures. That is why, before issuing the DWP’s debt code of practice for the first time, as per our statutory obligations we will carry out a formal public consultation on a draft of the codes, to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to review them. Once finalised, all the relevant codes of practice will then be laid before both Houses of Parliament for 40 sitting days, before publication. The clause is a key safeguard to ensure that the new DWP recovery powers are exercised proportionately, and it offers transparency for the public on their use. I commend it to the Committee.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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 .)

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to situations in which the court determines that the debt is not recoverable. I imagine that at that point we would bear the cost ourselves; it would not be recoverable from the individual. There is clearly some risk for us in that, as is perfectly usual, but by the point at which we decided to take somebody to court we would be able to demonstrate that a significant amount of effort had gone into attempting, through other mechanisms, to make them pay back what they owed the Department, so I hope we would have a very high success rate in that regard. Question put and agreed to. Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 96 Offences: non-benefit payments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Members have asked a number of questions, which I will do my best to cover. On the broader context and content of the code of practice, I outlined a range of areas such as a reasonable opportunity to settle debt, the exercise of functions under direct deduction, driver disqualification powers, penalties for noncompliance by banks, the use and processing of information and ensuring that that is compliant with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR, as one would expect. On the broader question of how we would work with people with vulnerabilities—the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned financial abuse and learning disabilities—there are a range of existing practices through which the Department supports people, as I set out in some detail on Tuesday afternoon. We have a vulnerability management framework and assessments of an individual’s vulnerabilities at all points throughout the process are built into our existing debt recovery practices, including a specialist team who work with customers who we know to be vulnerable. I think that the Department has sufficient infrastructure in place to deal with and support people who find themselves in those circumstances, either as victims of financial abuse or because of some of the disabilities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about the issuing of notices. The code of practice will give guidance on when notices are given and further guidance on how banks should comply. On the subject of consultees, it is important to say that we are in ongoing dialogue with banks and organisations such as the Money and Pensions Service about support for people who find themselves in debt. The public consultation will invite those who are already closely engaged with the subject to correspond with us further. That will include some of the stakeholders I have just mentioned, but we will accept evidence from anybody who wants to feed into that process. I would not want to second-guess the cause of any future revision, but were it to become apparent that there were issues that we needed to contend with, grapple with and get right—whether they came out in discussion with stakeholders or in the practical application of the code—I imagine that that would be a sensible stage at which to do so. I was asked about delay and when the code would be in place. We are looking at laying it before both Houses of Parliament for 40 days, so I am confident that delay will not be a particular challenge for us in recovering some of the figures that are scored against this measure. We anticipate that the draft code of practice will be available to Members before Committee stage in the House of Lords. Question put and agreed to. Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 93 Rights of audience Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On when a penalty will be considered more appropriate, there are clearly thresholds for our investigators’ interpretation of when somebody has committed fraud and at what level we consider that fraud to be. On the hon. Lady’s point about genuine error, the clause is for situations where we consider that somebody has committed fraud, not error. The administrative penalty does not arise in cases of what we consider to be error. It may be that it is a first-time offence. It would certainly need to be a low-value offence, because an administrative penalty is capped at £5,000. It is worked out as 50% of the value of the overpayment, so the amount would always need to be below £10,000. For anything beyond that we would be looking at prosecution. How long a person has to pay back will depend on a range of factors. It is clearly dependent on their ability to pay the money back, and what their means of production is and so on. That would always be considered on a case-by- case basis. Question put and agreed to. Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 98 Amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001: loss of benefits following penalty

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause amends sections 111A and 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to include non-benefit payments. This will enable the DWP to charge a person with an offence under either of those sections where it relates to a non-benefit payment. This is a key clause that, in conjunction with clause 97, will enable the Department to offer an administrative penalty where there are appropriate grounds to do so. The Government take a fair and proportional approach to tackling fraud and error. We will always be tough on serious fraud, but for less serious first-time offences it is appropriate and fair that we have the opportunity to offer an alternative to prosecution. The person will always have the choice to accept or reject an administrative penalty, should they wish to do so. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is very much the case that the power is a last resort. Where there are additional costs, we will be able to recover them. It is important to recognise the steps, as I outlined on Tuesday afternoon, that will have been gone through before the point at which we reach this process. If we were to go through a more traditional route outside these powers, it would add considerable time to the process. I remind Members that by the point at which we take somebody to court, we have reached out to them multiple times through debt management and at least four further times through debt enforcement, and we have offered at every break in the process the opportunity to agree an affordable repayment plan. That would be the case right up until this stage, so I can reassure Members that it would be a power of last resort. Question put and agreed to. Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 94 Recovery of costs Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 94 inserts proposed new section 80F into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and relates to the recovery of costs from debtors. The clause simplifies existing legislation to ensure that the costs of court enforcement that DWP is already entitled to reclaim from debtors can be effectively recovered from the debtor, together with any costs incurred by DWP under the new direct deduction and disqualification from driving powers. The clause enables DWP to recover these costs from the debtor using any of the available recovery methods, to make sure that, as debtors’ circumstances change, the money can still be recovered. The clause ensures that the taxpayer does not pick up the burden for costs associated with pursuing debtors who refuse to repay public money, and that DWP can recover these costs from the debtor in the most effective way. Clause 95 inserts new section 80G into the Social Security Administration Act 1992, providing technical interpretative provisions for the new debt recovery powers contained in part 2 of the Bill. First, it confirms that debt recovery provisions should always be read in a way that is consistent with data protection legislation. This is a relatively standard provision that deals with any unintended and unforeseen ambiguity or apparent conflict with normal data protection principles. Secondly, it confirms that references to “giving notice” can include, among other methods, service by post, as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978. That avoids ambiguity about how, for example, proposed deduction orders can be given to account holders for their consideration, which is a key safeguard under the new direct deduction order power.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 98, page 61, line 21, leave out from “(a)” to end of line and insert “— (i) omit the words from ‘section 115A’ to ‘or’, and (ii) for the words ‘the corresponding provision for Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘penalty as alternative to prosecution in Northern Ireland’, and”. This amendment updates a parenthetical description in section 6B(2)(a) of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to expand the types of overpayments that can be considered for an administrative penalty under sections 115A and 115B to include non-benefit payments, such as the grants that were paid through the kickstart scheme. Currently, the option to offer an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution is not available for non-benefit payments, so the DWP is required to refer all such cases for prosecution. Extending the scope to include non-benefit payments will enable the DWP to offer those who receive a non-benefit payment an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution, in appropriate circumstances. The measure gives individuals or colluding employers the choice to accept the administrative penalty or have the evidence reviewed before the courts. The change is really about fairness. It will bring equity and parity to the way the Department tackles and addresses fraud and it will offer first-time offenders or those who commit low-value fraud an alternative to prosecution. It will provide the individual or colluding employer with a choice, allow the courts to focus on the most serious crimes, and enable the Department to resolve cases more quickly where appropriate.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause inserts proposed new section 80E into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That provision gives DWP officials right of audience and allows them to conduct litigation in the magistrates, county and Crown courts in England and Wales. New section 80E has been introduced to enable lay DWP officials to oversee civil claims and applications and appear in related court hearings on behalf of the Secretary of State in debt recovery matters. That is similar to the rights already provided to other Government Departments, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, as well as local authorities. The disqualification from driving power in clause 91 and schedule 6 of the Bill will be exercised by the court only on application from DWP, and there are other civil recovery mechanisms already available to DWP involving the courts. Those are generally routine proceedings, but, without the clause, DWP is required to instruct a solicitor in every case. However, the clause does not prevent DWP from instructing a solicitor for debt recovery proceedings where it would be appropriate to do so. That ensures that DWP can recover public money in the most efficient and effective way from those who evade repayments, thereby reducing costs for the taxpayer.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I may have missed a question about costs, so will the hon. Lady please ask me that again if needed? The team members taking forward cases for us in the court will be HEO, or higher executive officer, level. That is the existing process, and that is the required level of authorisation for those using similar powers. This is not particularly new for us; it is just new for us in this space. A specialised DWP team will receive training in conducting litigation and appearing in court in addition to training on the new recovery powers. We already have the right to conduct and appear in similar tribunal proceedings, so we will share best practice when developing that training. On the question of MOJ consultation and court pressures, whether we use solicitors or take them forward ourselves, the pressure on the courts will be the same, so there will not be a material impact on the court backlog. Clearly, the MOJ is aware of our intentions in this regard, but this is more about our ability to do that while minimising costs.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a little perplexed by the suggestion that somebody would be found not guilty or be charged. We are talking about debt recovery, so it is a slightly separate matter. It is not a criminal issue; it is a question of how, through civil powers, we can reclaim funding, so I am not sure that those questions arise. But if the hon. Member for Horsham wants to intervene on that, he is welcome to. On the question of whether fraud and error are distinguishable in the reclamation of debt, the answer is no. They are treated in the same way, because this is about situations in which it has already been established that somebody owes us a recoverable amount and they have repeatedly refused to engage. I refer to my earlier comments about the number of times we would have reached out to somebody to get them to engage with the process. Parliament has previously resolved that overpayments of certain types of benefits are recoverable, and the Bill does not change that. On the question about savings and so on, we would be able to recover all reasonable costs. There is no particular limit on what we can recover, and it is treated on the same terms as debt. On the question of why we need to make a distinction for email, this is one of those situations in which I am grateful that I can sometimes reach out for answers. It goes back to the Interpretation Act 1978; we did not have email back then, so we need to set out separately, on a legal and technical basis, that post is specifically allowed, given provisions elsewhere. Yes, digital is still permissible, but we need to state specifically that post is acceptable as well.