142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 6 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   North Sea Energy

   I welcome the Government’s commitment to no new oil and gas licences, and to putting workers and communities at the heart of the transition to a climate-safe economy. It is a bit disappointing to hear that so many Conservative Members still live on planet flat earth, with an ostrich approach to our energy future when what we need is a phoenix approach. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question. Can she confirm that the 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent currently in the North sea will not be pumped? If it is, it would be the equivalent of running 15 coal-fired power stations from now until 2050. She will know the climate implications. Will she confirm that the Government will stop consent for new production?

   Hansard source
2. 6 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Political Finance Rules

   I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate on such a crucial topic. Public trust in politics is at an all-time low; only 12% of people trust political parties, and only 15% of the population think that political funding is transparent. There is clearly a problem at the heart of British politics. As the hon. Member said, it is particularly bad in our country, because we have an Electoral Commission with very little in the way of teeth or of limits. That leaves our democracy open to corrosion and dark money, which we have to be particularly worried about guarding against. As the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said in the previous debate, we must guard our democracy against those anti-democratic forces and against dark money—the influence of money in politics is a core part of that corrosion. In the UK, there is no limit on individual donations. That is not the case in Canada, in France, or even in the US. Why is there no limit on how much money an individual can donate, and on how much influence they can therefore exert on British politics? Corporate donations are allowed here, but are banned in so many other <span id="525" class="column-number" data-column-number="525"></span>countries. Foreign donations are theoretically banned here, but loopholes mean that an individual such as Elon Musk could quite easily work within existing, very bendable rules in order to exert what would undoubtedly be a very corrosive influence on our politics. The hon. Member for South Dorset mentioned the Electoral Commission’s lack of enforcement powers: the maximum fine it can impose is £20,000, yet the influence in our politics totals tens of millions of pounds. Just over the past decade, £115 million has come from unknown sources. This is clearly a serious problem. I welcome the fact that the current Government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties, in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence. I very much hope that in her summing up the Minister will be able to clarify exactly what that will amount to. What actions do the Government intend to take in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence? Can she commit to taking measures such as strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission to issue fines, reducing the reporting thresholds in order to increase transparency, and clarifying spending limits? Those measures would not require primary legislation, so can the Government set out the timetable by which they will bring forward those urgently needed measures to protect our democracy? Big money in politics is a corrosive influence. This Government have the opportunity to put a stop to it—to bring us up to the standards that other democracies have put in place. Will the Minister set out her timetable for doing so, and clarify precisely what she will do?

   Hansard source
3. 5 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Points of Order

   On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during my urgent question on Gaza, the Minister responding, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, said that the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), could not answer the question himself as he was<span id="301" class="column-number" data-column-number="301"></span> “in the region pushing for a peace deal”<span id="vol763_col166" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="166" data-volume-number="763" data-external-id="4804797E-27CF-4830-8DA5-96CB8132E932">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 166.]</span> However, I have since received a communication from the press with evidence suggesting that he was at a Labour party networking lunch at Ronnie Scott’s at the time. Could you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether the record should be corrected if it is shown not to be correct?

   Hansard source
4. 5 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

   I share the horror, outrage and deep disappointment and disillusion- ment of many hon. Members in the House, across many parties, and of people across the country at the Government’s terribly short-sighted and counterproductive decision to fund greater investment in defence through slashing the development budget. Like many hon. Members, I know how important the development budget is because I spent practically my entire career before I came to this place working in that field. I have seen it face to face and on the ground. I know that investing in health, education and nutrition helps increase human security for the long term, and that investing in conflict resolution, peace building, democracy support, and women’s and girls’ rights builds human security globally and makes the world, and us, more secure in the long term, as well as in the short and medium terms. So it is impossible to understand why the Government have taken this incredibly counterproductive decision. The three D’s of defence, diplomacy and development are united: they work together. We cannot possibly increase one by slashing another. It is unbelievable that this decision has been made, because it is so unnecessary. A Member on the Government Benches talked earlier about needing to “send a clear message”, but what is the message that has been sent by this decision, which follows in the slipstream of President Trump’s blocking and dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development? It is the wrong message. Members on the Government Benches—indeed, the Prime Minister himself—have talked about “tough choices”, but it is a wrong choice, because there is an alternative. We did not have to fund this investment on the backs of the poorest and most marginalised. There are other choices available to us. We should ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden of increased investment in defence and security. Our neighbours in France are doing exactly that by looking at wealth taxes. In his summing up, will the Minister explain why the Government have decided to fund investment in defence by undermining diplomacy and development in slashing the aid budget, leaving us all more insecure in the long run?

   Hansard source
5. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I do not support the Conservative amendment. A lot of the discussion in Committee has been about reducing the risk of harm to potentially vulnerable people and people caught up in these frauds, who might not deserve to be punished in any way. I would not support taking out a measure that is there presumably to reduce the consequences of making an error. Therefore, I will not support the amendment.

   Hansard source
6. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Desmond. I have two quick questions for the Minister. I associate myself with the comments about ongoing scrutiny and consultation. I am pleased that the most consequential of these potential new regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it seems like a lot to not go through a huge amount of scrutiny beforehand. I want to ask about why subsection (2)(c), which relates to whether somebody might suffer hardship, is excluded from the consultation required under clause 37(5). Subsection (2)(f) is also excluded, which is about whether there might be cumulative hardship as a consequence of things done under this law or other laws. The people affected by that, and those who represent people who might face hardship, ought to be consulted on that as well. Is it because the definitions of hardship are scrutinised and well established elsewhere, and we will draw on those definitions when making the regulations, or do we need additional information in this clause or assurances from Ministers that this will happen? Finally, I want to ask about the meaning of the word “Schedule” in subsection (2)(f).

   Hansard source
7. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   I have more serious questions about this part of the Bill than I have had about any other. I question the additional penalty notices: what goals do they have and will they be achieved? I can see that Ministers seek to go beyond simply recovering lost funding, when it comes to issues of error or fraud that results from personal misunderstandings and so on, and that they want to be able to act more quickly and efficiently on slightly more organised defrauding of public bodies. However, I do not see how the Bill helps with the biggest fish, who are taking huge amounts of public money, potentially through fraudulently obtaining contracts, fraudulently setting out work that they did not do, or fraudulently stating the quality of the work they will do or the materials they will use. At the end of chapter 5, the Bill states that if a person has received a fixed penalty, they cannot now be prosecuted. I wonder whether these fixed penalties will be just the cost of doing business for the biggest, most commercial fraudsters, while being potentially disproportionate towards people who may be taking smaller amounts away from the DWP in particular. We received written evidence from the charity Turn2us, whose representatives are worried about the way that the Bill as a whole does not seem to create a clear enough distinction between fraud and error. Turn2us highlights that it might act as a deterrent to people who are more vulnerable, or older, or who would worry excessively about falling foul of these regulations and being accused, on the balance of probabilities, of doing fraud if they make a mistake. There is already stigma attached to claiming things from the Government, which may deter people.<span id="188" class="column-number" data-column-number="188"></span> On Second Reading, and to some extent during the Committee evidence sessions, we discussed examples of people sharing tips and potentially their own personal experience online, in a way that encourages other people to make misrepresentations towards the Government. These penalty notices are not as well drawn as the measures already considered by the Committee in terms of their potential harms. They are fixed penalties, and the Minister is setting the amounts to try to strike a balance between the poorest people and the highest-level, most organised criminals. I foresee in my future casework people coming to me whose lives started to spin out of control when they were given this kind of penalty notice on top of having to pay back money they had received. The repayment amounts will have been calculated according to what they could afford, but these fixed penalties have fixed deadlines and interest attached. Somebody could make a mistake in the process of dealing with the authorities and be subject to the additional £300; then, if they do not pay that, there are further penalties attached. I worry that this chapter is not very well put together in terms of safeguards on how it might affect people. I might get reassurances in this debate about what the Bill is intended for; of course, if somebody is out there giving intentionally fraudulent bad advice, all the people who they give advice to will not be brought into a mass fixed penalty issued as a result of the investigation. We will avoid that. However, there has already been creeping use of repayments by the DWP in relation to recovering money from people when official error has been made. As stated in the written evidence that we received from the Public Law Project, assurances were made that the DWP does not “have to recover money from people where official error has been made, and we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”<span id="vol_col1019" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1019" data-volume-number=""><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, </em>19 May 2011; c. 1019.]</span> That was said to a previous Bill Committee when this process was introduced in legislation, but it is now more or less default practice for the DWP to recover money when official errors have been made. We all, as MPs, have many examples in our casework of people who have got into terrible trouble due to unexpected claims for overpayments made as a result of official error. I have serious concerns about these clauses. I would like to hear more from Ministers about who they are really aimed at, and about whether they will be effective against the big players, or just create potential harm for people who are the smaller fry involved in these kinds of operations.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   I forgot to make a point earlier about the common practice with penalty notices of offering a person the ability to pay less if they pay sooner, but if they exercise their right to appeal, they lose that discount. That is how penalty notices are often presented. The Minister assured us that people will be able to state in appeals that they are subject to hardship, but that practice effectively negates the point of appealing. Could Ministers introduce a prohibition on offering that kind of fake discount on penalty notices for early payment, so that everybody can exercise their right to a review based on hardship?

   Hansard source
9. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Topical Questions

   <Question HRSContentId="{F0D90FE5-094E-4843-861A-AADE9A1B5703}">T7.   <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E4B499F4-D377-4B6D-B640-261A7099A31F}"></QuestionText>Expanding UK airport capacity has a very shaky case for economic benefits, because business is not increasing its use of air travel, and the UK sends three times as many tourists out by plane as we welcome in. Will the Chancellor urgently publish her evidence of any net benefits to the economy from airport expansion so that it can be carefully examined?</Question>

   Hansard source
10. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Gaza

    <em>(Urgent Question):</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Mar 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Gaza

    Over the weekend, the Israeli Government took the decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Minister talked about that aid, but it can no longer be delivered. Israel is once again using starvation as a weapon of war, and today we hear that it has also announced a so-called “hell plan” that would see electricity and remaining water supplies cut off. These decisions coincide with the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, with negotiations on phase 2 barely begun, jeopardising the release of the remaining live hostages, plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and a longer-term peace agreement. The UN has said: “International humanitarian law is clear: We must be allowed access to deliver vital lifesaving aid.” Oxfam described the move, made as Ramadan began, as a “reckless act of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law”, and the International Court of Justice has previously issued explicit instructions to Israel to facilitate aid deliveries to Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government are again in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and of international humanitarian law? Has she, or have her colleagues, spoken to their Israeli counterparts to condemn Israel’s “hell plan”, and to make it clear that there must be no resumption of the war and that it is unacceptable for the people of Gaza to be denied critical food, water, and medical or any other supplies? What action will the UK take against the Israeli Government if they continue, illegally, to use humanitarian aid and access to water and power as a bargaining chip? I know that the Minister wants the ceasefire to hold. Can she share her assessment of the impact of these latest developments on the prospects for a lasting, just and fair peace?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Mar 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{FA84C69B-56A5-44AB-8D67-85A88A71B757}">T9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9F475B32-0C0A-4DA0-9891-76FB2CDCB027}"></QuestionText>In response to the minimum energy efficiency standards consultation for privately rented homes, landlord groups are saying that they would pass the cost of energy efficiency works on to tenants, despite that being the cost of bringing their properties up to basic minimum standards. Relying on council guidance that that should not happen is too weak. What additional measures will the Minister take to enforce that and ensure that it is private tenants—who are already at the greatest risk of fuel poverty—who will benefit, and not landlords?</Question>

    Hansard source
13. 3 Mar 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Ukraine

    On behalf of the Green party, I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong support for Ukraine, his work for peace and his commitment that there should be no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. However, given the scenes that we saw in the Oval Office on Friday, which people across the country will have been aghast at, given the <span id="40" class="column-number" data-column-number="40"></span>bullying tactics of President Trump, and given the fact that Trump clearly views this as a business opportunity, how will the Prime Minister ensure that the interests of Ukraine remain front and centre in the peace deals?

    Hansard source
14. 26 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

    I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for, in particular, her comments about the way in which residents were treated. There have been strong recommendations for a review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. My former role involved listening to and trying to support the many local community organisations that were dealing with the enormous gaps in the humanitarian response that had been left by the local authority; the problems continued for weeks. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when we will hear about the timing and the format of that review of the Act?

    Hansard source
15. 26 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    High Street Bank Closures

    On the specific point of the criteria, I could not agree with him more. It is really problematic. In my constituency of North Herefordshire, we have a banking hub opening in Leominster, now that Lloyds bank has left. However, in Kington, which does not have a bus service to Leominster, there is a fantastic post office that could be a banking hub, but it has been told that it does not fit the criteria. I do not understand why. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ask the Government to make sure that these criteria are reassessed, because banking, especially in remote areas, is such an important function for businesses and individuals. We cannot continue with the system as is.

    Hansard source
16. 26 Feb 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

    I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her commitment to the inquiry’s recommendations and her commitment to systemic change. Picking up the thread from two Government Members on an oversight mechanism for state-related deaths, I was shocked to discover that it is nobody’s job to track recommendations from prevention of future deaths reports and make sure they are enacted. Those have relevance for victims of huge tragedies such as this, but just as much for individual tragedies, such as that of one of my constituents. I have a private Member’s Bill on that proposal. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me to talk about this idea in detail and how it can be enacted?

    Hansard source
17. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E38C20A0-9A14-4954-B20D-BA2F532411F4}"> </QNum></strong> I want to go back to the question on proportionality. The previous witness emphasised that she was concerned that the eligibility-verification powers might go beyond proportionality and risk additional intrusion. When you are commenting, are you commenting on those powers as well, or mainly on the other parts of the Bill? <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> In terms of search warrants and physical access?

    Hansard source
18. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    Yes. The other powers that you mentioned already exist and are being transferred to a new place where things are conducted. Eligibility verification in the form that it is written is quite novel. <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> Does His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs not have the ability to conduct those inquiries?

    Hansard source
19. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    As inquiries, but the difference is that we are talking about routine use. <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> More extensive use.

    Hansard source
20. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    Yes. Would you care to comment on the eligibility-verification powers more specifically? <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> I can see why there is concern. People have complex lives—perhaps it is not as straightforward as how much capital is in a bank account at a particular time. I think the powers need to be exercised very carefully. I am reassured by the opportunity to test and learn from the process through oversight, but I do recognise the concerns. <em><strong>Kristin Jones:</strong></em> I used to be in charge of international assistance when I was at the Serious Fraud Office. One of the difficulties is that whereas other countries have a central bank register or building where you can tackle that and find out all the accounts and individual holes, here we do not. It is more tricky to try to verify financial information because there is no central register. <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> We were speaking before about whether it is flexible enough to cover future events. The way that we use cash or funds is changing in terms of digital currencies and so on, and the way that people hold value is changing.

    Hansard source
21. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{9A37EBD6-D2C5-4FF0-8A98-2E3C05530640}"> </QNum></strong> Were those last two comments more about the effectiveness of the legislation? <em><strong>Alex Rothwell:</strong></em> Yes.

    Hansard source
22. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E122BD09-99E8-4262-A0E5-51C69D6FD240}"> </QNum></strong> To follow up on that point, the Bill is called the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. Do you feel like there is enough built in to identify and deal with errors? As you say, systemic things may be uncovered that are causing errors or losses that are not in fact fraud. Does that get fed back? Would you like to see more in the Bill that systematises that? <em><strong>Joshua Reddaway:</strong></em> Interesting. The reason we always talk about error and fraud together is because it is often really difficult to differentiate between them when you are doing prevention. So, in my job, I am more interested in fraud and error together because I am more interested in how to correct that and stop the money going out. If you are in Richard’s job, as I am sure he will tell you in a second, he is going to be more interested in the one that you can prosecute—to an extent. <em><strong>Richard Las:</strong></em> I am happy to jump in from an HMRC perspective. It is important to understand what the driver is—I think that is absolutely right—and to be able to distinguish between fraud and error. We have estimates for fraud and error in terms of the tax system, which we publish every year. We generate those estimates for a lot of different activity, but partly they are the result of our own inquiries, so we are analysing what we do and what we see. We make a judgment—is it fraud, is it error?—and we work out what is going on. Absolutely, you have to look at the underlying reasons, so if there is an error, a repeated error, you ask what is going on there—what is the cause of it? Certainly, as we develop our business in HMRC—especially with people filing online—we are very much looking to prompt people so that they can get the right answer. Those of you who do self-assessment hopefully will see that yourself—“Are you sure? Is this information correct?” That really does help in reducing errors—the simple errors that people might make, because it is complicated.

    Hansard source
23. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E6D31BD7-34F4-47A3-B767-CF719215F55D}"> </QNum></strong> Those are errors that might be mistaken for fraud, given their outcome of people paying less or—<span id="41" class="column-number" data-column-number="41"></span> <em><strong>Richard Las:</strong></em> Potentially. But it goes both ways, often. Sometimes people overpay as well. <em><strong>Joshua Reddaway:</strong></em> If you are looking at a particular case, normally the first thing you detect is that it is wrong—the transaction is not correct. You then have to take it to a certain level before you can work out, on the balance of probabilities, what it is. In tax world, is it evasion or avoidance? Then you go down a different route, depending on how you are dealing with it. Obviously, if you want to go for a prosecution, you have to have much more evidence and you have to be beyond reasonable doubt to go there. I think the reason why PSFA often deals with both is that it is at that earlier stage of dealing with prevention, and it is not always clear which one you are dealing with; besides which, we want to stop error as well. My job is to definitely try to stop both, through audit and accountability. I think where it does not make sense for PSFA to get involved is where that fundamental responsibility for correcting the control environment belongs with the Departments. So if you see that as a, “They have done that triaging; they now think that it’s fraud,” you need an enforcement capability and you go down that route, but I would be very disappointed if that meant in that triage process that an error was not being dealt with. Does that explain?

    Hansard source
24. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{41F4DC76-12DE-4EED-A7EB-10492E55C7B8}"> </QNum></strong> It does. Do you think the Bill does enough to deal with that issue? <em><strong>Joshua Reddaway:</strong></em> I am saying I do not think this Bill is about that issue.

    Hansard source
25. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{95ACE77A-9CC3-4070-BB94-89EF5CFEAEF5}"> </QNum></strong> Are there any other issues in your consumer duties, particularly your duties towards vulnerable account holders, that you have raised with the Government? The Minister has helpfully asked you that question in general terms, but I thought there may be other issues. Going back to Daniel’s earlier comment, can you clarify that you do not yet have a clue regarding the volume of requests? Have you been given some sort of estimate by the Government? <em><strong>Daniel Cichocki:</strong></em> Let me take that first. The Government set out two broad criteria pertaining to the eligibility verification measure: the capital check and the check against abroad fraud, through assessment of transactions abroad. It is difficult at this stage, because the industry has not undertaken any detailed collective analysis of the criteria against the current book of customers. That work has not yet been done. We anticipate it being done through the development of the code of practice, but key for us is understanding exactly what criteria we will be required to run, and then banks can start to build an assessment of how that looks against their current book. That detailed work has not yet taken place.

    Hansard source
26. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B7BB082F-9139-4929-8D54-2E4F7D68A97E}"> </QNum></strong> To follow up directly on that, the Government have not really been clear yet which further benefits might be added to the workload in future. Are you happy that this is left open in the Bill? <em><strong>Daniel Cichocki:</strong></em> I do not think we take a view on the scope of individual benefits for which this is applied. The key principle for us is that where there are changes to the eligibility criteria, we are required to check that there is proper public consultation around those changes <span id="51" class="column-number" data-column-number="51"></span>and an appropriate implementation period for any of those changes, and that those changes are not too frequent. As an industry, we have to build a system to run these checks every time, and every change will have to be built and tested. For us, it is more about the principle of the frequency and appropriateness of the changes. The broader debate around what is in scope is not one we have taken a view on.

    Hansard source
27. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4C3461D2-6696-4522-926D-3E6DFABE7F70}"> </QNum></strong> Those are helpful things to know. Did you have any more to say about vulnerable customers? I know we have had some representations from disabled people, for example. <em><strong>Eric Leenders:</strong></em> Certainly. I will just build on Dan’s point regarding change requirements, to give a picture of the timespan involved. Typically, a change would involve the build—IT systems change and training, which is policy and procedures. We would also need to think about communications, including potentially into terms and conditions for the legals that sit around that. We would want to build monitoring systems to ensure that we have conformance and some form of review process. We have a three-line defence model, where the business runs the business, the second line checks the business, and the third line checks the checkers, so to speak. We then repeat that cycle. Putting that in place takes some time, which rather illustrates Dan’s desire for fewer changes and additions, because all of that would need to be considered. The point on vulnerability is very well made. There is a slight health warning in my comments, because the Financial Conduct Authority is due to publish findings from a thematic review imminently, as I understand—within the next couple of months. The broad drivers we adhere to that they identify are around financial resilience—we touched on that point a little earlier—and physical and mental strain. There are potentially some mental strains for individuals who feel they may be under suspicion, particularly where those prove not to be founded. Life events are critical now—key in affordability, typically the driver for financial difficulty, and also capability. There are various measures, but as an industry we typically would work to a reading age of nine to ensure that the UK population understands the communications that they receive. In building out the guidance, it would be very helpful for a period of consultation so that we can get into the detail and forensics around those points.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CBD36A76-0372-4BD6-B037-3DB17A5E2D4C}"> </QNum></strong> Disabled people who receive direct payments have expressed some concern that there can be underspends and that these can build up. They have asked for a particular account to be ringfenced for that, and essentially not looked at in relation to these measures. Is that feasible? What is your lead time for knowing that you would need to do it? Would it need to go into the Bill initially? <em><strong>Eric Leenders:</strong></em> It would always be within the gift of a consumer to open a separate account. They can then ask for the benefit to be paid into that account. There might be a risk, from a wider perspective, that potentially attorneys and landlords might no longer want to receive benefits directly because of the potential admin burdens through this Bill. I flag that as a consideration. I do not think it is necessarily a show-stopper but certainly it is something that I think from a vulnerability perspective <span id="52" class="column-number" data-column-number="52"></span>we need to be alive to, because that might be an additional responsibility on a vulnerable person, for example, to pay the rent.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4F0B2E56-7FC6-4C26-BD52-CDF12661D03C}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you for coming along. I think we should ask you the same general questions that we have asked all the other witnesses who have given evidence today. Do you believe that the Bill is a proportionate way of dealing with fraud and error in the DWP? I think that has been put to you, but I want to be clear. Given the position that the Information Commissioner’s Office has more or less laid out—that it will need to see the code of conduct to feel reassured, and I think we have come to that conclusion from the evidence of a number of our guests today—would a sufficient code of conduct make you content with the Bill, or is there something particular in it that needs to go? <em><strong>Jasleen Chaggar:</strong></em> Our view is that the powers will only ever be proportionate if they uphold the presumption of innocence, due process and judicial oversight, and any privacy infringements are set out in law and are necessary and proportionate. We feel that a code of conduct would be insufficient, because it would just defer those legal protections to some other time. Also, if an individual has a problem as a result of the use of the powers, they are unable to enforce their rights through a code of conduct. Setting out the protections in legislation would create a far more rights-preserving framework, with which we would definitely feel more comfortable.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C4F9E546-67E8-4442-A72B-C7A9C23DB18F}"> </QNum></strong> Do you have anything more to say about what the unintended consequences of the Bill might be?<span id="67" class="column-number" data-column-number="67"></span> <em><strong>Jasleen Chaggar:</strong></em> We are really concerned about the unintended consequences of the Bill. We appreciate that there has been an effort to tackle fraud and error, which is a serious problem, but we also have to consider the adverse and unintended consequences. One of those is the algorithmic error that can occur when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongfully investigated. We are also really concerned about the human backstop element. The DWP has assured us that there will be human involvement in any investigations on the back of receiving this data, but when you receive such a deluge of information from the banks, that calls into question whether the human involvement will be meaningful. The impact assessment acknowledges that by saying that we might have to slow down the rate at which we receive all this data from banks. We are very concerned about the false positives, and about the devastating effects that they would have on the lives of the individuals who are wrongfully investigated. Benefits recipients, who are already subjected to burdens in terms of documentation requirements, will find themselves subjected to an investigation by the DWP. We have heard from dozens of disability rights and elderly rights groups about the anxiety and stress that this will cause. Also, when benefits recipients are under investigation, they can find that their benefits are suspended, meaning that they will not have the money to pay for food, medical bills or heating bills. So the equality impact also has to be considered, and we have not actually seen an equalities impact assessment for the Bill either, which is a concern.

    Hansard source
31. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FE4119E1-1A5C-4647-9D2C-542860A6E459}"> </QNum></strong> I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. Minister Western, are you open to a negative eventual human rights verdict on this? Many <span id="78" class="column-number" data-column-number="78"></span>witnesses have said they need answers from the code of conduct, and we know that rights around data protection, privacy and discrimination are engaged by this. If, once we have seen the details of the code of practice, there is a negative verdict on any of those, are you open to changing or withdrawing parts of the Bill, for example by bringing reasonable suspicion to the front of the process instead of the end? <em><strong>Andrew Western:</strong></em> We would need, at that point, to take advice—legal advice, primarily—if there was that level of concern around any human rights impact. I would not want to second-guess, but certainly, in the instance where those views have been put forward and the legal advice suggested that they were valid, then clearly we would need to take appropriate action to ensure that the Bill is legal and satisfactory.

    Hansard source
32. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{2ED235EF-02B8-426B-930D-52A35E037660}"> </QNum></strong> That is helpful, because a lot of people have said it is contingent. I want to ask about one more thing to do with error. You said earlier that you were aiming to reduce the amount of overpayment through these processes, but will that also relate to underpayments? What percentage of error, in terms of innocent people being targeted for investigation by the new powers, do you think is acceptable? <em><strong>Anthony Western:</strong></em> When I talk about reducing over-payments, I mean reducing the value of overpayments rather than the number. Obviously, for a bank account to be flagged, there would have to be something in there to cause that flag. This would not reduce the overall number of overpayments necessarily, but it would reduce the amount of debt that someone might have accrued, were the eligibility verification measure to identify that at an earlier stage. We have seen some horrendous cases, through the carer’s allowance issues that have come to light, involving really significant numbers, because it has gone on for several years. That is the sort of thing we would be able to stop as a result of this—I am really sorry, Siân, but I cannot remember the rest of your question.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E4364713-3F3C-4459-B1A5-A01BE8EF3A20}"> </QNum></strong> I just want to clarify that if someone’s financial situation gets better, you withdraw the payment, but if you saw from the data you are collecting that their situation had got worse and they were starting to face difficulties, you would not seek to send someone in to try to increase the payment. <em><strong>Andrew Western:</strong></em> I am not sure that I fully understood the question, so please come back in if needed. It is clearly the case that if somebody has been receiving benefits that they are not entitled to, for whatever reason, they could end up in a worse financial position as a consequence. That is necessarily the case for two principal reasons. One is that in universal credit all overpayments are reclaimed regardless of the circumstances behind them. That was the policy enacted by the previous Government. The other reason is that they may no longer receive benefits that they previously believed themselves to be entitled to. For instance, if it comes to light that you have £18,000 in your account and there is no mitigating circumstance for that, it would be the case that you would be worse off in overall terms because you would no longer receive that benefit.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{EB46113E-E116-4B0E-ABA8-0A1156110973}"> </QNum></strong> Sorry, Chair, the second question I asked about the percentage of error was not answered. What percentage of error do you think would be acceptable, in terms of innocent people being targeted for investigation? <em><strong>Andrew Western:</strong></em> I am not prepared to put a percentage on it. We would have to see what came out. We have done two previous trials on this and we are fairly confident in the mechanisms that are in place. That has underpinned some of the assumptions we have made. We are committing through this process to a test and learn phase so that we can keep errors as minimal as possible. Ideally, I would not want to see any errors at all, but ultimately we have structured this so that, were something to come back as a false positive, as it were, it would not lead to an immediate decision, because it would be passed to a human investigator for further investigation.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Defence and Security

    Members across the House recognise the need to invest more and to invest differently in defence and security, but it is unbelievably counterproductive and short-sighted to fund that by slashing aid to the poorest and most fragile countries, or by squeezing already stretched departmental budgets. Why will the Prime Minister not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy, rather than placing the burden on the poorest?

    Hansard source
36. 24 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Social Media Use: Minimum Age

    I have met parents from Smartphone Free Childhood, but also young people. This is a big issue in Brighton Pavilion. Has the right hon. Member thought about pushing for the Minister and Members to talk more with young people about where the age limit should lie, rather than trying to come up with a number in the middle of a debate? It is clear from talking to young people that they feel that parts of social media are very toxic, but I also think they are best placed to judge where the limit should lie.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Feb 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Ukraine

    I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is indeed important that we have cross-party support across this House, standing in solidarity with Ukraine and being clear that Ukraine must be front and centre of the peace talks that must take place, but it is deeply disturbing to hear some of the comments from President Trump, including the absurd claim that Zelensky is a dictator and the ridiculous suggestion that Ukraine started the war. Therefore, when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington later this week, will they make it clear to President Trump that Ukraine must be at the centre of these peace talks and that the Ukrainian people have an absolute right to self-determination?

    Hansard source
38. 13 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    HIV Testing Week

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time this week, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and the co-chairs of the APPG for all the work that they do. I also echo calls from hon. Members for the funding for global work that is being shamefully cut back by the new US Government to be found from within this country. I ask the Minister to look at the pressure that is also being put on, and the funding that is being withdrawn <span id="213WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="213WH"></span>from, wider rights-based groups, which we spoke to yesterday in a fantastic and interesting roundtable. There are many groups working in the global south to support LGBT rights and reproductive rights, which include healthcare. The impact of the cutback more widely will be on health, and we owe it to those groups to ensure that we are doing what we can to make up for what the American Government are so awfully doing. I am pleased to join this important debate and to support HIV testing week. I absolutely commend the efforts being made by so many MPs, including the Prime Minister, to promote HIV testing. That is great to see. As an MP for Brighton, I am proud of the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust—which is partly based in my constituency, not far from my office—for making this a bigger event every year, and more and more inclusive. I recently visited THT to see first-hand the incredible work it is doing to end new transmissions of HIV, supporting people to live well with HIV, and challenging the stigma and all the things that go around that. Its work with partners in my city, like the pioneering Lawson unit at the Royal Sussex County hospital and the local HIV charity, the Sussex Beacon, is all so exciting. Opt-out testing was mentioned. The emergency department at the Royal Sussex has been doing that testing since March 2022. It has since been rolled out nationally in areas of very high HIV prevalence. In Brighton, the team at the Lawson clinic has identified 16 new HIV diagnoses in recent years. That sounds like a small number, but the impact for each individual is absolutely massive. They are all people whose HIV will almost certainly have gone undetected up until then. All the work that is being done to normalise testing as part of a trip to A&amp;E, when blood is drawn, does so much to reduce HIV stigma, help people, and save and improve lives. Brighton also has some groundbreaking digital pathway work happening. The locally co-designed HIV app EmERGE has been a big success. It is a European project centred in Brighton, and I am told that people absolutely love it. There are about 720 people using it for PrEP access, appointments and support. This innovative approach has helped ease the pressure on local services and freed up about 1,000 local appointments per year. That is fantastic work, making all our money go further and helping people to cut their transmission risk without fuss and bother. That is what we all need to be working towards. Let us be clear: zero transmission of HIV is possible by the target date of 2030. The work in Brighton that I have just described proves that. I truly believe that Brighton could be the first place in the UK to achieve that target, given the comprehensive work going on. I know that hon. Members in the Chamber are aware of all of that, and I hope the Minister will set out how a roll-out of that model across the UK will be funded.

    Hansard source
39. 13 Feb 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    LGBT+ History Month

    I thank the Minister for chairing an excellent roundtable yesterday through the all-party parliamentary human rights group. The key message we heard from human rights campaigners from east Africa and global organisations was that we are experiencing LGBT history right now in the cuts to US Government funding being forced out by insidious transnational anti-rights campaigns. The call for the UK to step in and fill the gap left by the US Government was very clear, and I hope the Minister will be taking that forward.

    Hansard source
40. 13 Feb 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Ukraine

    Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this “was not a good war to go into”? Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia?

    Hansard source