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

• New Clause 1 Discussion:
  • Siân Berry proposed an amendment to protect universal credit claimants from repaying overpayments due to official errors unless they could reasonably have known it was an overpayment.
  • Over 700,000 universal credit claimants were affected by official error overpayments in 2023-24.
  • The current system requires claimants to navigate a difficult process to request a waiver, which is granted infrequently.
  • The amendment aimed to encourage the DWP to reduce errors and prevent financial hardship for claimants.
• Government Response to New Clause 1:
  • The Minister, Andrew Western, explained that the assessment of whether a claimant could reasonably have known about an overpayment is made by specialist teams.
  • He noted ongoing efforts to minimize errors and fraud, including the eligibility verification measure to help identify fraud and errors earlier.
  • The Minister resisted the new clause, emphasizing existing processes for claimants to appeal decisions and the DWP’s commitment to ensuring fair and affordable repayment plans.
• New Clauses 2 and 15 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed making fraud against public authorities a specific criminal offence, with penalties including imprisonment and fines.
  • New Clause 15 aimed to criminalize the encouragement or assistance of benefit fraud online.
  • Concerns were raised about the normalization of fraud through social media and the need for enforcement against “sickfluencers.”
• Government Response to New Clauses 2 and 15:
  • The Minister argued that these clauses were unnecessary as existing legislation covered the offences proposed.
  • She noted potential unintended consequences, such as reduced maximum sentences and confusion in legal enforcement.
  • The Minister suggested using existing powers and proposed further discussion on tackling fraud encouragement.
• New Clause 5 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed requiring the Secretary of State to publish results of pilot schemes with banks to test the Bill’s provisions.
  • The clause aimed for transparency on how well the system works before full implementation.
• Government Response to New Clause 5:
  • The Minister stated that the clause was unnecessary due to existing proofs of concept and independent oversight.
  • No further pilot schemes were planned, as existing powers were considered sufficient.
• New Clause 7 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed an annual report on money recovered under the Bill’s provisions to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Government Response to New Clause 7:
  • The Minister highlighted that existing mechanisms, such as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s scrutiny and the DWP’s annual reports, already provide the necessary oversight.
  • She resisted the new clause, believing it would not add value beyond existing reporting.
• New Clause 8 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed a technology strategy to address fraud and error using AI and automation, with safeguards for human oversight and rights of appeal.
• Government Response to New Clause 8:
  • The Minister referenced the Government’s existing AI opportunities action plan, arguing that a separate strategy was unnecessary.
  • He emphasized the role of human decision-making and the forthcoming fairness analysis assessments.
• New Clauses 9 and 12 Discussion:
  • New Clause 9 would require an assessment of the Bill’s impact on vulnerable customers.
  • New Clause 12 aimed for an independent review of the Bill’s impact on financial exclusion.
• Government Response to New Clauses 9 and 12:
  • The Minister resisted both clauses, stating that existing safeguards, oversight, and reporting mechanisms in the Bill already protect vulnerable individuals and address financial exclusion.
• New Clauses 10 and 11, and Amendment 32 Discussion:
  • Steve Darling proposed delaying recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments until after an independent review.
  • John Milne proposed regular audits of algorithms used in assessing Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
  • Amendment 32 would delay the Bill’s commencement until the Carer’s Allowance review recommendations were implemented.
• Government Response to New Clauses 10 and 11, and Amendment 32:
  • The Minister noted an ongoing independent review of Carer’s Allowance and resisted committing to implementing all recommendations without review.
  • He explained existing safeguards and the use of human decision-making in verification processes, resisting the new clauses and amendment.
• New Clause 13 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed allowing the Secretary of State to apply for liability orders to seize assets in cases of proven fraud.
• Government Response to New Clause 13:
  • The Minister explained that existing legislation already enabled such actions, making the new clause unnecessary.
• New Clause 14 Discussion:
  • John Milne proposed requiring algorithms and AI systems used in the Bill’s purposes to be included in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.
• Government Response to New Clause 14:
  • The Minister stated that government departments are already required to comply with the standard and resisted the new clause, emphasizing existing transparency measures.
• New Clause 16 Discussion:
  • Rebecca Smith proposed a review of whistleblowing processes in the public sector to address fraud.
• Government Response to New Clause 16:
  • The Minister noted existing whistleblowing channels and recent recommendations, resisting the new clause but acknowledging the importance of whistleblowing.
• New Clause 17 Discussion:
  • Steve Darling proposed ensuring the DWP considers the impact of direct deduction orders on victims of domestic abuse with joint accounts.
• Government Response to New Clause 17:
  • The Minister resisted the new clause, explaining existing DWP guidance and processes for supporting domestic abuse victims, and highlighting potential difficulties in implementation.
• Clauses 99 to 104 Discussion and Conclusion:
  • Clauses 99 to 104 cover technical aspects such as the Bill’s application, limitation period for civil claims, consequential amendments, financial provisions, territorial extent, commencement, and short title.
  • The Minister and Committee members expressed appreciation for the constructive dialogue during the Bill’s consideration.

The level of disagreement displayed in the parliamentary session for the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is rated at a 3 out of 5 due to the following observations and examples from the transcript:

• Moderate Disagreement on Procedural and Policy Issues: The session involved several instances where new clauses were proposed and subsequently debated. These were often followed by their withdrawal, indicating a moderate level of disagreement that was not overtly hostile but still significant enough to warrant discussion and negotiation. For example:
  • New Clause 1: Proposed by Siân Berry, this clause sought to amend the recovery of universal credit overpayments due to official error. Although initially moved and debated, it was ultimately withdrawn without a vote. The proposer expressed hope for future consideration, indicating an ongoing disagreement on the policy but one that was not pursued to a divisive vote at this stage.
  • New Clause 2 and 15: Proposed by Rebecca Smith, these clauses aimed to address fraud against public authorities and encouraging fraudulent benefit claims online. They were pressed to a vote but were defeated, showing a clear division amongst members. However, the proposer’s willingness to withdraw after discussion suggests an attempt to resolve disagreements constructively.
• Constructive Engagement and Dialogue: Throughout the session, there was significant constructive engagement on various issues. Ministers provided detailed responses to the concerns raised by new clauses, which often led to the proposers withdrawing their amendments. This reflects a balanced approach to disagreement, with room for negotiation and understanding. For example:
  • New Clause 8: Proposed by Rebecca Smith, this aimed at a strategy for using AI and automation in fraud detection. The Minister’s response outlined existing governmental frameworks, leading to the clause’s withdrawal, indicating a respectful disagreement resolved through information sharing.
  • New Clause 10 and 11: These were related to Carer’s Allowance overpayments and algorithmic systems. Although there was disagreement on these points, the detailed response from Andrew Western and the eventual withdrawal of the motion by Steve Darling demonstrate a process of engagement and clarification rather than entrenched division.

• Votes Reflecting Clear but Not Extreme Disagreement: The session saw a few votes where clear disagreement was evident but not extreme. New Clauses 2 and 15 were defeated in votes, but the margins (3 Ayes to 11 Noes, and 3 Ayes to 10 Noes) suggest a notable but not overwhelmingly divisive disagreement.

• Points of Order and Procedural Concerns: There was a procedural point raised by Neil Coyle about declarations of interest, but this did not escalate into a major conflict, maintaining the session’s overall moderate level of disagreement.

• Lack of Highly Contentious Debates: While there were disagreements, the session did not escalate into highly contentious debates or personal attacks. Most discussions remained focused on policy details and procedural matters, further supporting the rating of 3 for the level of disagreement.

Overall, the session’s disagreements were evident but generally handled through constructive debate and negotiation, which justifies a rating of 3 on the disagreement scale.