Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful. We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state. Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary. In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay. New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What assurances can the Minister provide to concerned adoptive parents in my constituency who benefited from the match funding element of the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and whose funding could be cut from £10,000 to £3,000? Will she consider reintroducing this vital element of the ASGSF?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will recognise that there are many women, including former supporters of her own party, who voted for candidates like me entirely because of our record of supporting biological women. However, in the meantime, given that a number of trade unions claim that they will ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court, and in some cases even campaign against it, what plans do the Government have to ensure that all trade unions are made to recognise that the Supreme Court ruling applies to them too?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross · Hansard source

  More

  Like everybody in the Chamber, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on the final day before Easter. We have really enjoyed listening to the stories he shared as well as those shared by many others across the Chamber. Although I have never wanted to be a commando, I have many of them as constituents who I call friends, and there are many hon. and gallant Members across the House who are also my friends. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I will refer to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission during my speech. I thought that I would start my remarks by mentioning the one Victoria Cross that I had a direct interaction with—albeit a posthumous one—while I worked for the war graves commission. In 2020, an Australian ordinary seaman—the great thing about the Victoria Cross is that it knows no record of rank; it is open to everybody—was awarded that posthumous VC by the late Queen. What was lovely about it was that when the naval memorial was undergoing a renovation a year later, the initials VC were added after the name. To be able to watch the lettering being created and soldered into place was particularly moving. That is another example of a posthumous award that has been given. What was striking about the comments made by the hon. Members for Strangford, for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) was the repetition of the word “leadership”. Anybody in the Chamber who is like me would have been thinking, “Gosh, this man was a brilliant example of some of the things that we need to show as politicians.” I felt quite inspired listening to the things that Paddy Mayne did. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, he was a leader of men, he was born for that time, he dominated the scene and none of the enemy remained. We do not want to be too political, but perhaps those are some great mantras for us as we head into the local elections. He defeated and destroyed the enemy, indeed. However, we are here to talk about him. I particularly enjoyed the more modern references to screenwriting and to our journalistic colleagues from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), as well as the link to the Falkland Islands made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). It is particularly important to understand what Paddy Mayne did after he left the SAS. We also heard reference to Corporal John Harper VC and that reminder of Winston Churchill’s words—and indeed the King’s words—from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). May I take this opportunity to place on the record my and His Majesty’s official Opposition’s unwavering support for our special forces as they exist today? They continue to play a vital role for our country. While we will always respect the requirement for operational secrecy, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House sleep soundly knowing that we have such a highly trained and brave set of soldiers protecting the nation. It is a real honour to speak in the debate, representing as I do a constituency that is home not just to many veterans but to many serving personnel, some of whom I know take part in the most daring and dangerous missions. The life story of Robert Blair Mayne, or Paddy Mayne, is, as we have heard, by all accounts exciting, brave and just a little controversial. He operated in some of the most unforgiving locations in the world—for example, north Africa and the Normandy landings—highlighting the vital work of the new elite commando force, the Special Air Service, that came into being during the second world war, of which Blair Paddy Mayne was such an important member. It is in no doubt that Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne served gallantly and with distinction. That is something that his military record clearly highlights, having received his Distinguished Service Order and three bars—even if one of those is the whole point of the debate—as well as Officer of the Legion of Honour from France and the Croix de Guerre from Belgium. However, evidence may now exist to suggest that that third DSO bar should indeed have been a VC all along. I know how important securing the appropriate level of honour for Paddy Mayne and others is to many today: those who are still alive and served at that time and those who fight on their behalf. Indeed, I have spent hours with one of my constituents, Ivor Foster, who believes deeply that his service as part of Bomber Command should be recognised with a distinct medal rather than with a clasp on the 1939-45 star. Even though I do not entirely agree with him, to this day he will not apply for the clasp, such is his desire to be recognised for his work. In contrast, it seems that reopening Paddy Mayne’s case may indeed be in order. That specific case aside, our overarching position as a party is that we continue to support the independent medallic recognition process. It is an independent honours and awards committee’s job to decide the nature of gallantry awards; in the case of the Victoria Cross, it rightly remains in the gift of the sovereign. Equally, I remain reluctant about the process becoming politicised or there being a precedent towards either overlooking history or second-guessing it. Hon. Members will be unsurprised that, having worked for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I am particularly interested in the historical facts that we need to ensure that we follow. Having spent six years working for the commission across the south-west, I want to touch on one story that I think is helpful to what we are discussing this afternoon. Anyone familiar with the iconic CWGC headstones may be aware that many have a small inscription at the bottom—always worth a look if hon. Members are ever in a cemetery. It is known as the personal inscription. Unfortunately, I did not think to write any examples down in my speech, but there is a brilliant website where they can be found. The inscriptions were instituted as a way for families to personalise a headstone. Interestingly, they came about after much debate in this place about the uniformity of the headstones decided on at the end of the first world war and the lack of choice for families in how their loved one was to be commemorated. That is definitely a story for another day, but I recommend a deep dive into Hansard if hon. Members are at all interested. As the work of the commission has continued over the decades, in some cases headstones have had to be replaced due to wear and tear. With that often comes contact with the descendants of the casualty, who by definition generally did not know the person and often did not know their relatives either. The commission has therefore set in place a policy for what to do when modern-day relatives wish to add a personal inscription to a replacement headstone. Essentially, they are not allowed to add one if there was none or change what was put there at the point of the original installation. The decision was reached that there was a reason why the family at the time chose not to inscribe or, indeed, chose the form of words that have been there for decades, and because the commission does not have records of why an inscription was added or not, adding or changing it, in the commission’s belief, would alter the integrity of the commemoration. I share that story as I believe it has some bearing on how posthumous gallantry awards are considered. It is my view that something that significant must reflect historical fact. Television shows such as “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, as we have heard much about this afternoon, and indeed the latest must-see “Adolescence”—albeit on a very different topic—do so much to bring untold stories to the fore and get the country talking about issues that have previously not been discussed. Even though such stories can promote debate, the policy and decisions made around the issues they raise must be evidence-based and consistent and must not set an unhelpful precedent. However, in this case, it seems that compelling new evidence is coming to light that prompts a rethink. At its core, this debate is about an individual soldier—a Northern Irish soldier from Newtownards who stepped up when his nation needed him. I mention his birthplace because I am sure it will not go unnoticed by those in the Chamber that while we stand here today celebrating the heroic actions of one SAS veteran, many veterans of that service are currently living in fear of vexatious legal action. Most recently, the Clonoe verdict has shone a spotlight on our Northern Ireland veterans again, and I take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans and People for his support for a judicial review of the Clonoe inquest. Protecting our veterans is something that I hope carries unanimous support and I know the Minister is a passionate advocate for veterans’ affairs. I hope that his experience and judgment are already being sought by his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office; perhaps he may advise them to reconsider their plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As already mentioned, this debate also provides another opportunity to discuss our country’s record on veterans’ affairs. The previous Conservative Government set a new standard for supporting veterans with the creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, a Veterans Minister around the Cabinet table, the introduction of veteran ID cards and Op COURAGE to support mental health services for veterans, no doubt many of whom would have been the colleagues of Paddy Mayne had that service existed back then. Our backing of those who stand up and serve is a matter of public record, and I welcome Labour’s commitment to much of that work. However, before I conclude, I want to highlight just one issue relating to these second world war veterans that the Government might like to give some attention to. As we approach the 80th anniversaries of VE day and VJ day, it is vital that we keep in mind the fewer than 70,000 veterans of world war two who survived, unlike some of the colleagues of Paddy Mayne, and who are still alive. As we know, these men and women are likely to be fast approaching, or indeed to have reached, the incredible age of 100. That brings me back to my constituent, Ivor Foster. Just a few weeks ago, I visited Ivor at his care home as he remains exercised about the cost of his social care. Having lived to the ripe old age of 99 years and eight months, he is spending £5,000 a month to live in a local care home. There are a range of reasons for that, but I believe that ahead of 8 May, Ivor’s case highlights that we are fortunate enough to be living in the midst of men and women who, as in the case of Ivor, not only lived through the war but took part in active combat, fortunately survived and then contributed to society afterwards. I gently ask the Minister, in a slightly cheeky way, what consideration has been given to how we will acknowledge and show our gratitude to those fewer than 70,000 individuals who are still alive, as we mark the anniversary of the liberation that they and Paddy Mayne fought for. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, given both my constituency links to our commando forces as the home of Royal Marines 42 Commando and my previous career with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am a passionate advocate for veterans’ affairs, so it has been an honour to stand at this Dispatch Box and debate such an important topic. Cases such as this rightly cause a debate, and I am pleased that we have been able to have this conversation today, not least because it has given us another opportunity to express on the record the commitment and gratitude that we share across this House for the brave men and women who serve and have served our country in the armed forces. We owe it to all serving personnel and veterans to ensure that gallantry medals and awards at all levels are presented where the evidence is irrefutable, to ensure that their intrinsic value is maintained. It seems that the story of Paddy Mayne may do just that, and I await the Minister’s response with interest.

• 7 Apr 2025 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  In the new town of Sherford, which is already being built in my constituency, there will be up to 5,500 new homes built over the coming years. However, there are challenges around FirstPort, the delayed delivery of a supermarket and other vital local amenities, and delays and escalating costs relating to the delivery of a new GP surgery. Also, National Grid pylons are being moved to make way for further new homes, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with key providers of national infrastructure, including the NHS and National Grid, to ensure that such obstacles are removed, so that these homes can be built?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate. We have some fantastic statutory guidance from 2020 and draft guidance from 2024. I would love to hear from the Minister when the Government are likely to respond to that draft guidance, because quite a lot has already been done in this area and we must take account of that. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the rights of parents. One of the safeguards included in previous guidance was to enable them to see curriculum materials and to have the option to opt out. It is vital that that is included in anything coming forward. I want to touch on the Plymouth violence against women and girls commission, which I chaired, and was instituted as a result of two tragedies in the city in 2021 and 2022. One of the recommendations of our report was for a whole-school approach to tackling violence against women and girls—something that has been mentioned—and it would be very good to hear from the Minister on that. That is also highlighted in the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s report “It’s #AboutTime”. Sex education is one thing and relationship education is another, but embedding healthy relationships and tackling misogyny and sexism right across the school community is vital. We need to look at that going forward. The key issue is the inconsistency of what we are finding across schools locally. I was alarmed to receive an email from a young lesbian, who at 18 years old says that she only recently found out that sexually transmitted diseases could be contracted by young women who are same-sex attracted. That highlights the inconsistency in the delivery of the existing guidance—something we need to look at. If young women like her are experiencing that, what are they also not receiving? There is a huge amount to tackle: porn, VAWG and dealing with all of those sexist behaviours. I know that this will not be the last debate that we have on these issues, and I look forward to contributing in future.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the emphasis in the Bill on removing the powers of planning committees will, by default, lead the public to believe that planning committees throughout the years have actually been the problem? In reality, many planning committees have done their mandatory training and made the right decisions, and those decisions have been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate time and again. It should be put on the record for the public that planning committees, as a whole, are not the problem. There is a huge range of issues that we might need to deal with, but that is not one.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given the hon. Member’s expertise as a former council leader, would he agree that the provision in the Bill that enables councils to set fees for planning could go further, particularly around the fees that could be charged for enforcement cases? He will know the amount of hours that planning officers spend tied up in their inboxes dealing with the enforcement of rogue individuals who seem to play cat and mouse with officials. Would he agree that a look at fees might be a sensible option?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and although my constituency is a long way from his, we too have significant problems with transport. We are on a peninsula, and if the trains stop, we cannot get in or out, so I completely understand the need for a focus on transport. We also have the health and education inequalities that have been mentioned, and the new Government’s attack on businesses with increased employer national insurance contributions. That affects not just businesses but our local St Luke’s hospice and vital community pharmacies such as Tubbs in Newton Ferrers. The changes to business and agricultural property relief are also threatening the future of long-standing family businesses. Arguably, one of the biggest opportunities for South West Devon is the continuing growth of the marine autonomy hub at Turnchapel Wharf in Plymstock. With over 300 years of history as a shipyard and naval base, it was sold 20 years ago by the Ministry of Defence and bought by Yacht Havens group. Over the last 12 years, it has invested in the hub and attracted more and more marine-based businesses, with a specific focus on marine autonomy, developing autonomous vessels for the future of scientific surveying, defence and humanitarian work at sea. The development highlights some of the unique opportunities we can have in the coastal community of South West Devon and Plymouth. With the easiest and quickest access from land to deep water in the country, my constituency is perfectly placed for businesses looking to do sea trials underwater—a niche but essential opportunity for our local coastal community. Last Friday, Thales delivered the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy from my constituency. The project is part of the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation, and it has served the French navy as well as the Royal Navy. It is vital, however, that we do not fall into the trap of looking at coastal communities solely through the lens of built-up areas, towns and cities. The coastal communities in my constituency have a wide range of identifying factors. As the Government’s local government reorganisation work progresses and councils across the country consider how they can best serve their own interests, it is important that they look at the interests of the places that they seek to absorb. Edging Plymouth, a unitary authority with its own proud identity, with part of Devon county council and two district councils will mean a very different future for much of my constituency, but taking in the rural character of communities such as mine is essential. Although the population of towns and cities such as Plymouth may significantly outnumber the population in the rural parts, it is essential to place value on both population size and land mass. Identity matters, and people often choose to live where they do to be close to the sea, but that does not always mean that they are in built-up towns and cities. Local government reorganisation must be in the best interests of everyone, not just people in urban areas, be they on the coast or not. To conclude, the previous Government recognised the challenge faced and invested significant sums of money in communities such as mine to help them close the gap with non-coastal communities. Going forward, we must be proud of coastal communities, which are such a key part of our national identity as an island nation. I am committed to finding the balance between pursuing opportunities and tackling the challenges that we all face.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  As a native of a coastal community in Devon, I am well versed in the challenges that living there presents. However, we must also highlight the opportunities its presents. It is all too easy to depict coastal towns, cities and communities as run down and tired—places where people retire or only have work six months of the year when the tourists roll in. While there is undoubtedly a lot of truth in that, there is also a huge amount to value and celebrate about our coastal communities, because if there was not, why would people flock from right across the country and, indeed, the world to visit? My constituency of South West Devon has the significant suburbs of Plymouth, Plympton and Plymstock, and swathes of the coastal South Hams and Dartmoor. The challenges the coastal community in my constituency face are much like those elsewhere, including housing for local people and transport connectivity.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we all agree that securing women’s wellbeing is key to tackling violence against women and girls, so can the Minister assure women across my constituency and the country that the Labour Government, having promised to prioritise women’s health, are committed to continuing the Conservative Government’s work by making sure there is a women’s health hub in every integrated care board, to ensure holistic support for women?

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Impact of Act on vulnerable customers “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers. (2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”— (Rebecca Smith.) Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an anti-fraud and error technology strategy within six months of the Act’s passage. That must include: how the Government intend to use automated technologies and AI to tackle fraud, subsection (2)(a); safeguards to ensure human oversight of decision making, subsection (2)(b); protection of rights of appeal, subsection (2)(c); and a framework for privacy and data sharing, subsection (2)(d). Members might be asking themselves why we tabled the new clause. In part, it is based on the evidence we received. In written evidence, the Public Law Project expressed concern that, although the impact assessment, the human rights memorandum and the statements from the Secretary of State and the Minister for transformation, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, on Second Reading state that a final decision on benefit eligibility will always involve a human agent, this is not reflected in the Bill itself. In response to the Public Law Project’s concerns, the new clause would provide an audit of technology systems used to tackle fraud, ensuring accountability while addressing the risks posed by automation in decision making. A report published by the Treasury in 2023, “Tackling fraud and corruption against government”, said: “Public bodies can better protect themselves…by sharing data and intelligence with other public bodies and working together.” We therefore believe the technology strategy clause recognises that sharing data is beneficial to stopping and recovering fraud, but includes additional provisions that audit its use. The strategy must include: how the Government intend to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud and error against public bodies; what safeguards exist for human oversight of decision making; how rights of appeal will be protected; and a framework for privacy and data sharing. The safeguards must ensure that grounds for decision making are reasonable only if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems. They must also make it clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process. To ensure this, any information notice issued must be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement. We know that AI and other technologies have huge potential to improve efficiency and productivity, and they should be used where appropriate, but we cannot rely on it yet to the exclusion of people and human judgment. The strategy we propose would ensure that those points were adequately considered by the Department, ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money while safeguarding claimants through the decision-making process.

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

  More

  Liberal Democrat new clause 10 would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government think owe repayments on carer’s allowance until the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented. Liberal Democrat new clause 11 would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to carer’s allowance overpayments. It would require that, if any audit identified significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic system, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament that outlines the steps the Government intend to take to discuss the identified issues. I am interested to know why the Liberal Democrats are singling out carer’s allowance for this treatment—namely, the review of the algorithmic systems—rather than any other allowance or benefits. Is there a reason for that? Liberal Democrat amendment 32 is a commencement block. It specifies that no part of the Bill may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under the clause “Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance” have been implemented. We would suggest that there is more holistic information that should be made public before the Bill can be commenced, and that the focus on carer’s allowance is in danger of missing the bigger picture. For example, we need to see the codes of practice, and we need to know precisely how the banks will deliver their responsibilities under the Bill. I would suggest that those things, which are sadly not yet available to the Committee as we scrutinise the legislation, and that has greatly hindered us, would provide a much more holistic assessment of whether the Government are ready to implement the Bill than the report on recovering overpayments of carer’s allowance. Would the Liberal Democrats consider an amendment at a later stage that goes wider than that?

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We have tabled the new clause to require the Secretary of State to publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions of chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. We have already discussed how banks will be required to undertake ongoing monitoring work to collect the relevant information as part of eligibility verification. The impact assessment states that two proofs of concept have taken place, including one in 2017, with short summaries provided of each. Given the scale of what is being asked of the banks, however, as well as how technology has moved on in the past eight years, it is reasonable to assume that pilots will also be undertaken to ensure that the system works properly before it is fully rolled out. Can the Minister confirm that this will be the case? In the interest of transparency, we also need to see the results of the pilots, which is why we have tabled the new clause to ensure that they are published within three months of the Act coming into force. It is regrettable that we needed to table the new clause but, as we have said several times throughout the Bill’s passage, and as we heard from witnesses before the Committee, it is extremely difficult to judge how the legislation will work in practice without seeing the code of practice and understanding what will be required of the banks. As UK Finance said in oral evidence: “Much will depend on the mechanism through which banks will be required to share the information, the frequency of the information notices, whether the criteria we are required to run the checks against change over time and other factors that will influence how much capacity is required from the banking sector. As I say, at this stage it is challenging to do a detailed assessment.” –– [ Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 48, Q85.] The practical implications of how to implement the Bill are not currently clear to the banks. We also discussed the consequences of getting this wrong. As UK Finance also said in evidence, “under the Bill banks responding to an information request or a direct deduction order, would have to consider whether there is some indication of financial crime that under POCA requires them to make a suspicious activity report. We think it is simpler to remove that requirement, not least because where there is a requirement to make a suspicious activity report there is a requirement to notify the authorities; clearly, there is already a notification to the authorities when complying with the measure. Removing that requirement would avoid the risk that banks must consider not only how to respond to the measure but whether they are required to treat that individual account as potentially fraudulent.” –– [ Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 49, Q89.] The banks are well versed in dealing with fraud, but not so much with error. We need reassurance that there are clear expectations of the banks in delivering their duties under the Bill, that those are compatible with existing obligations regarding financial crime, and that the banks can resource them.

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

  More

  As we have heard, Liberal Democrat new clause 14 would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included in the algorithmic transparency reporting standard. I have obviously just heard the comments of the hon. Member for Horsham, but I would be interested to know precisely what the Liberal Democrats are aiming to achieve with this new clause and how such reporting would better enable the Government to crack down on fraud and error. Is that the intention behind the new clause?

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 7 Annual reporting of amounts recovered “(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act. (2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”— (Rebecca Smith.) Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of whistleblowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector within one year of the Bill passing. The Opposition would like the review to include the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistleblowing processes, the barriers to reporting fraud, the reasons for the under-reporting of fraud, and recommendations for change. The Committee has previously discussed the 2023 National Audit Office report that highlighted the difficulties with whistleblowing within the public sector, particularly in respect of whistleblowing on senior colleagues. The NAO also highlighted that of the public sector whistleblowing disclosures it received in 2023-24, 12% related to fraud. I did not get a particularly clear answer from the Minister about the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that junior civil servants are able to raise concerns about more senior members of staff, so I am interested to see if there is more to be said. It is a serious issue. One of the reasons I was interested in tabling this new clause is that, as a junior member of staff at a local authority, I saw this happen. I was in a situation where two colleagues were defrauding the local housing authority, and at that stage as a 21-year-old I did not feel able to do anything about it. That is one of the biggest regrets of my life. Having worked significantly in housing since, the fact that I was not able to call them out for essentially purchasing a council house that they were no longer living in, makes me feel that this safeguard —ensuring that Government Departments’ houses are in order as the legislation goes forward—is particularly vital. John Smart, who sits on the PSFA’s advisory panel, raised the example of the US, which has whistleblower reward legislation in place that is effective at flushing out issues affecting payments made by the Government. The legislation flushes out fraud by incentivising whistleblowers to blow the whistle, so to speak. He recommended that the Government consider such legislation, so could the Minister inform the Committee whether the Government have looked into that option? Would it be possible for us to learn from that legislation? Could the Government consider such legislation in the future, and if not, why not?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance “The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as— (a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance; (b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State; (c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and (d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.” — (Steve Darling.) This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 2 seeks to make it a specific offence to commit, assist or encourage others to commit fraud against a public authority. Someone who commits such an offence would be liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both. The offence of fraud against a public authority in the Bill is a civil offence. The Government argue that civil penalties offer an alternative to prosecution and help to mitigate the burden on the criminal justice system by offering alternative routes for the public sector to manage fraud cases. The Bill introduces a framework of civil penalties for fraud that the Minister can impose, including on behalf of other Government Departments, serving as an important deterrent against fraud in the public sector. We think it is an anomaly for public sector fraud to be a civil offence while benefits fraud is a criminal offence. Will the Minister explain why one type of fraud is seen as less serious than the other?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. I have obviously heard what both Ministers have said in response. We are still keen from a principle perspective to push the new clause to a vote because we think more needs to be done to outline specifically what we are doing to tackle the online aspect. I hear what the Minister is saying but, in this particular instance, we would like to take it further. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  The Conservatives—the official Opposition—share the Liberal Democrats’ view that it is vital that we use different Departments across Government to tackle domestic abuse and domestic violence. We have a really strong track record of doing that in government. In principle, the new clause seems like a good idea. I am conscious that we need to ensure that the Bill does not exacerbate or create problems for victims and put them even more at risk. I have done a lot of work on violence against women and girls away from this place, and I am conscious of how tricky it can be to prove some of these things. I wonder whether there might be other ways to achieve the same outcome. I assume that is why the Government are not able to support the new clause. The new clause includes language such as “potential” and “believed to be”. My gentle challenge is about whether it could be worded differently, as we go forward to other stages, to make it more achievable and deliverable, and something that would have a place in the Bill. As it stands, I am not sure that would be the case, but I am interested to see this issue debated further, because the official Opposition share the commitment to tackling domestic abuse and domestic violence.

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

  More

  The good news is that the Minister has answered some of my questions, particularly in respect of clause 99 and the extension of the retrospective time limits. Clause 100 is a standard Henry VIII power to make consequential provision as a result of the legislation; does the Minister envisage that the power will need to be used frequently? Clauses 101 to 104 are standard provisions and we do not have any substantive comments to make on them.