🔍 Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting)

• The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error, and Recovery) Bill was debated in the Public Bill Committee, focusing on amendments and clauses related to information gathering and eligibility verification within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

• Clause 72 was discussed, which proposes to grant DWP officers the power to issue information notices to any entity as part of a criminal fraud investigation. This expands the current powers to obtain information from a wider range of organizations and electronically, aligning with Scottish government practices.

• The DWP’s commitment to privacy and safeguards was emphasized, noting that these powers would only be used when there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, and any information requested must be necessary and proportionate.

• Clause 73 focuses on the requirement for a code of practice to guide the use of information-gathering powers. This code will include details on compliance timeframes, how to fulfill information requests, and penalties for non-compliance.

• The Minister confirmed that drafts of the code of practice would be shared before the Committee stage in the House of Lords, emphasizing transparency but acknowledging that the code could not be finalized until the Bill is amended.

• Clause 74 and Schedule 3 introduce the eligibility verification measure, allowing the DWP to check bank accounts to confirm benefit eligibility, aiming to reduce fraud and errors. This will initially target universal credit, pension credit, and employment support allowance.

• Amendments were proposed to modify the scope of the Bill, including suggestions to remove pension credit from eligibility verification and to limit the ability to add or remove benefits from the verification process through future regulations. These amendments were debated but not passed.

• Concerns were raised about the potential for mass surveillance and the impact on vulnerable groups, with the Minister clarifying that the measures are designed to prevent widespread privacy invasion and are focused only on relevant accounts.

• The Bill aims to save £940 million over five years from the eligibility verification measures, addressing a significant portion of the £9.7 billion lost to fraud and error last year.

• The session concluded with votes on the proposed amendments, which were rejected, and the clauses and schedule being ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The parliamentary session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. This assessment is based on several key observations throughout the transcript, particularly around the amendments proposed and debated in the session.

1. Amendments Proposed and Voted Upon: Multiple amendments were proposed by the opposition, specifically amendments 24, 25, 29, 30, and 35. The significant disagreement is evident through these amendments, which aimed to alter important provisions of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. For instance, amendments 29 and 35 sought to limit the government’s ability to adjust the list of benefits subject to the eligibility verification measure, reflecting a substantial point of contention.

2. Opposition to Specific Provisions: The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party showed strong opposition to certain aspects of the Bill, particularly clauses concerning mass surveillance and privacy implications. The term ‘Orwellian’ was used by Steve Darling to describe their concerns about the eligibility verification processes, indicating a fundamental disagreement with the approach proposed by the Bill. Similarly, Siân Berry from the Green Party argued against clause 74 and schedule 3, highlighting the potential infringement on the privacy of millions of people.

3. Government’s Defense: The government, represented by ministers Andrew Western and Rebecca Smith, consistently resisted all amendments. The rationale provided for resisting these amendments, such as the need for flexibility to adapt to changing fraud patterns and the practicality of implementation, underscores the government’s strong support for the Bill as it was presented. This resistance to changes proposed by the opposition signifies a clear disagreement.

4. Division and Voting: The session resulted in numerous divisions (votes), with all proposed amendments being negatived (rejected). The votes were consistently close, with 13 members voting in favor of the government’s position and 3 against, indicating a clear split on key issues. The repeated occurrence of divisions reflects ongoing disagreement throughout the session.

5. Specific Disputes: Disputes over the scope of benefits subject to eligibility verification were notable, particularly regarding the inclusion of housing benefit and pension credit. For example, Rebecca Smith’s inquiries about the rationale behind why existing powers were insufficient and the implications for non-financial institutions showed a probing disagreement with the government’s approach. Similarly, the debate over pension credit sparked discussions on its proportionality and the potential impact on vulnerable groups.

While there was evident disagreement, it did not escalate to the level where amendments or clauses were significantly revised or postponed, suggesting that the disagreement, while present, was managed and contained within the context of parliamentary debate. Therefore, the disagreements, while notable and leading to formal votes, were not severe enough to disrupt the passage of the Bill, hence the rating of 3.