Lords Chamber

Thursday 15th May 2025

(began 6 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Lords Speaker Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lord Speaker)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I have My Lords, I have to My Lords, I have to notify My Lords, I have to notify the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have to notify the
11:08
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
House, I will start again. I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal assent art 1967 that is Majesty the King has signified his Royal assent as the following acts. Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, transfer of funds et cetera act, bike resolution recapitalisation act. And Great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British Energy act. First of all question, Lord. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. My Lords, effective resettlement of prison labour is crucial to of prison labour is crucial to reoffending. This includes making sure someone has a home, family sure someone has a home, family links, where appropriate, access to healthcare or job education and timely access to benefits where needed. We have committed to needed. We have committed to ensuring pre-release plans are in place for prison leaders to ensure these are identified and addressed appropriately. Community probation practitioners coordinate individual rehabilitation, supported by prerelease teams, ensuring that they receive appropriate provision

**** Possible New Speaker ****

receive appropriate provision through prison -based and commissioned rehabilitation services. I thank the Noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lord the Minister for his answer. My Lords, whilst most prisoners will, of whilst most prisoners will, of course, be looking forward to their release, there will be those also for whom release will be difficult, or even traumatic. Particularly some of those who have served many years in prison. And who may miss the settled routines of life inside. What work is his majesties Government doing to help ex- offenders like this strengthen their sense of belonging, meaning, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identity following release? I think the right runner earned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the right runner earned product for that question. If it is a very profound question because of a very profound question because of course some prisoners do get institutionalised when they have institutionalised when they have served a lengthy prison sentence. The answer to the question is The answer to the question is putting in place accommodation, putting in place something for prisoners to do with their time when they are released, either education or employment. And, where
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Potential value of the global market for creative content from the UK for use in training artificial intelligence models Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-

three. The key to resolving the issue is to get the prisoners into one of those tears of accommodation
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank my Noble Friend the Minister for that helpful response and I refer the House to my register of interests. Working with not-for- profit's I have seen how vital and often popular projects can be delayed or derailed by the complexity of the planning system. Often used by small well-organised local opposition. Larger developers can usually navigate this, smaller organisations, especially those without profit motive can struggle. Does his majesties Government consider planning complexity itself a barrier to progress? That is worthy of attention as part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning system reform. My Noble Friend is quite right. We have made it a priority of the Government to develop a simplified running system with a policy framework that is accessible and understandable to all. Our reforms will streamline planning processes will streamline planning processes to help all homes of all tenures to help all homes of all tenures accelerate the delivery of major infrastructure projects. They will modernise the decision-making process and increase local planning authorities capacity to deliver that improved service.

We have also committed to establishing a clear asset national policy for decision asset national policy for decision making, so that system is clear and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making, so that system is clear and more consistent. All of this should help smaller developers. Is it not mandatory for all new houses to have do have on their houses to have do have on their roofs either solar panels or tiles?
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Poverty is a major cause of shoplifting. The full is less than 30% of minimum which and is received by less than 30% of pensioners. by less than 30% of pensioners. Despite benefits to million pensioners live in poverty, over 100,000 per year die in poverty and the last fuel payment unchecked profiteering and income tax allowances will only worsen matters. The Minister has the power to reduce pension poverty by aligning the State Pension with the living wage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When will he do that? To my Noble Friend, first of all, the survey that has generated this question was undertaken by one question was undertaken by one security firm whose survey found that only 5% of inverted commas that only 5% of inverted commas pensioners were undertaking shop and they defined pensioners as people they defined pensioners as people aged over 50. It was complete nonsense, so before we go any nonsense, so before we go any further, let's just kill right now the argument that pensioners particularly are a focus of shop particularly are a focus of shop theft.

They are not. It is criminal organised gangs, and that is where the Government is focused. My Noble Friend mentioned a range of issues today with challenges that pensioners face. I say to him first pensioners face. I say to him first of all that we have protected the peers pensioners through the winter peers pensioners through the winter will allowance. We are ensuring that we maintain the triple lock. We are
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:56
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
There is now a broad consensus that the government's immigration system is broken. Too many people are coming into and staying in the United Kingdom. This is affecting jobs, pupils communities, it is a serious problem that requires a serious solution. -- People's communities. It is disappointing the white paper is not such a solution. I'm sure in a few moments the Minister will stand up and talk about the legacy of the last government. Let me save some time, in the other place earlier this week the Home Secretary herself praise conservative policies when she noted these were applications down by 40 percent.

The consequence of the policies of the last government which came into force in a to -- into April last year. -- visa applications. It is now almost a year since the current government has been in power. The migration numbers we are seeing are manifesting and have manifested for many months on their watch. In our view, the white paper lacks ambition to make the tough decisions needed to truly take a hold on immigration numbers. Now is a time for courage, not halfway House decisions which do not tackle the problem.

Safeguarding British jobs, promoting cohesion in our communities and reshaping our immigration system to be fit for purpose must be prioritised. There is a refusal in the white paper to define an annual cap for migration to be set and voted on in this Parliament. It is not enough in our view to hope that numbers will come down. If the government is confident they can get their numbers down in considerable amounts, will the noble Lord the Minister push for a cap to be set out in law? I'm sure we will discuss this in more detail when the Borders bill is debated here in the next few months but it was disappointing the government refused to support our amendments in the other place designed to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration matters.

Does the noble Lord the Minister agree that you tackle this issue properly, that needs to happen? The same can be said for changes to visa thresholds. The previous government plan to increase their visit salary threshold for £29,000 to 38 £700,000. This was due on 1 April but the government delayed this policy, missing the opportunity to bring numbers down, a measure projected to lower immigration numbers by 300,000 people. All the noble Lord the Minister consider adopting that policy and raising the visa family policy and raising the visa family threshold for family reasons to £38,000? Immigration deeply matters £38,000? Immigration deeply matters to people across the country.

The to people across the country. The proposals we had before as I am sure are well-intentioned but they do not go far enough. Until the government go far enough. Until the government starts considering the proposals I have set out, the white paper we have before us will not deliver the changes that people across this country want to see and which the government has a responsibility to bring about. bring about.
11:59
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Immigration does involve a contract between the immigrant and the host country, each has a part to play and each should be positive. We often used to talk of the benefits of overseas students and our universities, the contribution to soft power played by welcoming people to our country as well as what immigrants, including my grandparents, contributed to the UK. I am glad this was acknowledged by the Home Secretary at statement, though not convinced the white paper entirely reflects this, but I have to say shocked by some of the language used by the Prime Minister, both words and tone are important.

I did not follow the logic of the white paper, supporting growth, housing and other construction, hospitality and tourism, for instance, requires skills which are not at the highest level and work Lawyers who recruit from overseas would not recognise this is the easy option, given the paperwork involved, and certainly not cheap with high Visa fees and the skills charge. Can the Minister tell is how much is expected to be raised by the increase in that charge? And invested in training.

I do not accept that carers are unskilled. Rather, their skills are not ones we have traditionally valued. Better payment, the Minister will be aware of the Liberal Democrat policy of higher minimum wage for carers, and our respect are due, and though the white paper acknowledges this, the conclusion that overseas recruitment should end is perverse and damaging to carers and to clients. There is abuse by some employers in this and other sectors, but the response reads too much like victim blaming.

Can the Minister tell us the timeframes for the Fair Pay Agreements mentioned? I would be interested in how the Government response to concern that more and more pensioners will be exhausting their savings on care. I do look forward to my work as being given more control about who they were before, reducing opportunities for exploitation. We hope to explore this through amendments to the forthcoming Borders bill, as well as issues around family reunion, about which we have very significant concerns.

What consultation is there to be regarding changes to migration? What does proper integration support, to use the terminology, look like? And can the Minister clarify at what point of the immigration process, as distinct from citizenship, English language will be tested? There is, to be, a new temporary shortage of occupation listing, including jobs critical to the investment strategy, which the Minister may say addresses the point which, to an extent, perhaps it does. Does temporary mean a temporary list, or temporary for the worker? And is the list that will apply for asylum seekers when they are allowed to work, which should be much sooner than currently, while waiting for a decision.

Indefinite leave to remain will, I quote, take account of the applicant's contribution. How is this to be measured? Five years is, apparently, not enough. Is it a matter of salary? How much discussion will there be an what data will the Home Office published in the interests of transparency? I returned to some of the rhetoric. One gentleman emailed me about how difficult it is for him and his partner who he tells me arrived in the UK legally. Paid Visa fees, paid the NHS surcharge.

Has no recourse to public funds. To read, she is regarded as causing incalculable damage. Regardless of incalculable damage. Regardless of the detail, he says it makes us feel unwelcome in the UK. These policies unwelcome in the UK. These policies affect UK citizens also. The white paper refers to many further policies to come, and there's a lot of follow-up with a lot of people uncertain and anxious and feeling threatened about their future, and threatened about their future, and many having thought that their future was clear.

I hope there is future was clear. I hope there is also a lot of consultation to come before policy is set in stone.
12:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to both the Noble Lord and the Baroness Ford their contributions. I hope I do not surprise the Noble Lord Cameron by saying I will not go over the previous record. I will let that speak for itself. We can all make judgements on that. And Government is a difficult place, but there were decisions that the previous Government took in all of its forms, from 2010 and we disagreed with. There were things that we supported.

But we are where we are now. And what we are trying to do is to put a framework around so many key decisions that the UK has to take in relation to the points that are before us in the white paper today. And those key principles in the white paper are that we need to reduce migration substantially. And, potentially, look at visas issued to fall by the end of this parliament as a result of the changes. We need to link immigration to the UK skills strategy.

We need to ensure that we create fair, effective, and strictly enforced rules. That includes what I would term good labour values on ensuring that we do not have exploitative workforce practices. That we do not have foreign national criminals who continue to commit crime in our country, and we do not have people working undercover because of their illegal entry into the United Kingdom. There are good values to ensure that we support work and the workforce as a whole. I think it is also a good value that we extend the hand of friendship to those who have lived here, come here, and worked here.

But also we need to support integration, community cohesion, and we need to ensure particularly that we empower Parliament to give a clear definition of family life, and that the immigration rules are clear for all. The Noble Lord Cameron has mentioned three particular areas which I will try to respond to. First of all, should we place a cap on migration and put that public figure in for Government to be held to? We have taken a decision that we weren't going to put a figure on that, but we are going to try to keep reviewing all the time the impact of the policies in this white paper with the objective of reducing net migration over a period of time.

Caps have proved a challenge in the past. They have proved an area where Governments have failed to hit targets, and we have taken that decision. If we debate it we can argue that is the decision we have taken. Secondly, should we supply legislation such as the ECHR and other legislation? The Government will abide by its international obligations and does not intend to withdraw from those international obligations but we will look at and we will be consulting on that in the UK context.

And there may be room there for us to look at that in detail, but there is no indication whatsoever that they're going to withdraw. That is our international obligations. He has also mentioned the Visa changes. There will be consultations and a number of the measures on the white paper will require both legislation in this House, either at an SI level, or at a rules level, or at primary legislation and there will be an opportunity for both consultation decision and contributions for both houses of Parliament accordingly.

The noble Baroness has begun by talking about the contribution of people who are immigrants to this country. I would want to just put on record my value for those people who have come to this country to make their lives and to contribute. There are a range of services, public and private, where the contribution of people who have come to this country is absolutely central to both public service, to economic growth, and to business as a whole.

We need to recognise that. We still need to have a system whereby we put some boundaries around migration, and around supporting the development of the UK society and its needs. There are 9 million people currently economically inactive in this country. What is the skills program for those individuals? Can we get some of those people to post some work that is currently being done by people that are being brought into the country? That is an important issue. I value very much the contribution of students at universities.

We are not stopping students coming to the country. We are not stopping universities having individuals come to the country. What we are doing is saying that when you have finished your university course, we are going to review the amount of time you can stay here before you need to make further applications along with the lines of immigration resumes that we are putting in place in those areas. I know for a fact we can probably count the number of presidents and prime Ministers and business leaders who have been to universities in this country and who value that experience and look back on this country as being the first step on their long life to success.

That is important. We are not stopping that. We are simply putting an 18 month period after graduation that says you have to then start to look at reapplying as opposed to automatically being able to stay. The skills agenda is really important. As I have mentioned already. There are a lot of unskilled people who can be brought in to the market. And also adult social is important. Where we are looking at that and the rules to this House about changes in that we are.

But I think it is important that adult social has still had a lot of abuse. A lot of vulnerable people have abused that route and we are trying to get some rigour and order into that route. She mentioned expectation. It is really important. I am pleased to see the former Prime Minister here, Baroness May, is really important that modern slavery issues, which she championed in this House, in the other house, sorry, when in Government, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, are put into a measure that ensures that we strengthen that route to avoid exploitation.

And people are coming here illegally. People working illegally. People being exploited by potentially by domestic or employment orders. Those are areas where we need to examine. Because that undercuts people who are doing legitimate work, legitimate businesses. And that is a really key issue for the Government as a whole. We will be consulting on the measures that the noble Baroness has outlined. And we will, certainly, examine, in full, any representations made. The Government has to set out a direction of travel. One of the key things we have to do is to set out the direction of travel and put some order into the system.

And not everyone is going to agree with the direction of travel on the order. To think it is important that we do have strongly controlled borders, stronger employment and trading opportunities for all. And we still attract high levels of talent. But we are still open to students and businesses to invest. But there has been a framework around that. And the white paper is intending to provide that framework. Finally, for those that have indefinite leave to remain, who are currently applying for naturalisation after five years, and we have a 10 year proposed ceiling in the white paper, we have a look at transition of arrangements and we are also going to make sure that we try to give opportunities that we try to give opportunities for further consultation on points to do with naturalisation that we know are important to this House and to the House of Commons, but most of to the House of Commons, but most of all, to people who are here already, that will be subject to further consultation at an appropriate time.

I hope I have answered the points that the Noble Lord and the noble Baroness have raised, and I await further questions. My Lords, I am grateful to the Noble Lord the Minister for his remarks about slavery, but one way to bring down net migration is to ensure there is no abuse in the Visa system. The white paper touches on this in particular to student visas. A key way to ensure there is no abuse is to move away from a strict points based system and give greater distinction to immigration officers.

Is the Government doing that, and if not, why not? The Government wants to try to operate the points-based system. And it also wants to put some more rigour into the student postgraduate approach and also to look at the fees around that and coming to the United Kingdom in the first place, so the white paper includes a shortening of the period after graduation. It includes a points-based system, examining what skills are required. It gives a commission to the committees we are establishing and looking at what skill shortages are.

At the same time as that, we are putting in some time as that, we are putting in some £625 million into £625 million into skills and training in England to try to raise levels of skills, so try to raise levels of skills, so that again graduates do post that again graduates do post graduation graduate-level jobs they do not do jobs that can be up scaled by people who are currently by people who are currently economically inactive in the United Kingdom.
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:18
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
As I have said and I hope I can say this again for the benefit of the House, students contribute to the cultural, economic and soft power that the United Kingdom has and we have welcomed students and will continue to welcome students but we also have to look at the impact of students on the migration system. At the moment many students to stay in the United Kingdom beyond their graduation and what we are trying to do in the white paper is reduce the level of time they can automatically stay on after graduation and put in a number of caveats where people have to go And students are not seen as away in the back door of coming to the United Kingdom in the long term.

That is a reasonable proposal that does not stop our soft power or investment in universities but at the same time looks at what students do in the long-term. I take the point you made about language. Language is important. I think it is important we focus on what the government is trying to do. The five key principles I set out are the direction of travel, we want to see better integration, I'm pleased my noble friend mentioned that language is important to that, but it is also about churches and other faiths talking to each other, it is about neighbourhoods being mixed neighbourhoods, it is about understanding and respecting differences in our culture.

At the same time, it is about trying to put a framework around all of that to ensure there is some level of ensure there is some level of management and control over how immigration is used and also how our skills base is raised. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will look at all of the points he has mentioned and continue to have a dialogue with him because I know it is a matter of importance to him. is a matter of importance to him.
12:20
12:22
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The government has made a judgement and the government in the white paper is trying to make a judgement about a number of issues. There is legal migration and the issues of who comes and how they come and what circumstances and we are trying to put a framework around are trying to put a framework around that, also trying to raise the level of skills of English-based and British-based citizens who are currently economic leap inactive to meet the skills shortage.

We are trying to put a target around the impact of universities in soft power issues and longer term investment in the skills and what people do graduate-level jobs afterwards. We are trying to look at a range of issues around integration and community coherence which I think resonates with what the noble Lord has said. But I do not think setting a target is a good thing. For others, it is the wrong issue. We are trying to ensure we have a framework in place to manage those pressures to look at what the UK economy needs, to look at how we build those skills and to look at how we improve integration.

Outside of the legal migration route there is the challenge that the noble Lord is concerned about with illegal migration. What we are trying to do is a whole range of measures coming before this House shortly on June 2 in the immigration and border spill about what we need to do to stop illegal migration and put that to one side. There are immense one side. There are immense challenges but I hope noble Lords and ladies can look at the white and ladies can look at the white paper, be critical in part, but look at it in terms of how a framework is trying to be developed and trying to be developed and contribute positively to that framework rather than look at what is not in it.

 is not in it.
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Statements in the white paper both refer to illegal and irregular migration, which I think is better than what we have heard recently which is lumping them both into illegal. Can the noble Lord the Minister first of all confirm that it is legal to enter a country to seek asylum? That if refused, someone must leave. Can he clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what he thinks is the difference between illegal and irregular migration? The noble Lady presses me on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady presses me on the issue which is her right to do so. What we are trying to do is ensure that people who have an asylum claim that people who have an asylum claim or seek refugee status can have that claim assessed within the United Kingdom or with our partners in the Kingdom or with our partners in the European Union. We are having discussions now with French, Belgian, Dutch and Germans about Belgian, Dutch and Germans about illegal migration.

There is a difference between someone claiming difference between someone claiming asylum which needs to be considered and processed, and if processed, and processed, and if processed, needs to be given, if approved, or if not approved, needs to be if not approved, needs to be removed. That is a reasonable, fair thing for governments to do. Regular thing for governments to do. Regular migration is also an issue which the government will be examining because government will be examining because there are a whole range of people seeking refugee status on other things and there are people trying to enter illegally across the Channel.

We are having to address all of those issues and the government is putting more rigour into that border control at the Channel to stop small boats and we are putting those measures in the bill before that House very shortly. bill before that House very shortly. We are also trying to speed up We are also trying to speed up asylum claims so they are processed more quickly to remove people from hotels and trying to make sure at the same time we meet international the same time we meet international obligations.

No one has said that is easy but the white paper, I hope, gives some new direction en route to gives some new direction en route to how we can do that in a more effective way. When the Minister comes to... What will success for this package of measures look like? We currently have projections from the ONS with the present policies that will will have net migration of 340,000 going forward. What will we be hearing from the Minister that we have really pulled it off and worthwhile? If he is not prepared to say that number, why should anyone in the country, read all blue wool sees,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe this is not an attempt to kick the can down the road? He tempts me to talk about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He tempts me to talk about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He tempts me to talk about the A success for me is that we have a properly understood, audit system properly understood, audit system were people wish to come to the country to work can understand clearly what was rules are. But we have rules that encourage the development of the UK-based skills development of the UK-based skills that do not deter people from enjoying the benefits of the UK education and at the same time put education and at the same time put some structures on when or how they should put some restrictions on early.

And tackling the issue of
12:31
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
early. And tackling the issue of illegal migration in a fair way and allowing people and enter yes I will stand here and be able to say to the Noble Lord that he may not like the remote but there is a clear framework in place that tries to determine how we control our borders, rather than just using rhetoric to try to control our borders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Human rights, again, it is legislative scrutiny of the board as legislative scrutiny of the board as Bill. Among the issues that have been raised, inevitably article 8 which the Noble Lord has referred which the Noble Lord has referred to. Given that this is not about directives from the European, the directives from the European, the difference in opinion between lower and upper to a tribunal's within the United Kingdom, I think we would all United Kingdom, I think we would all welcome greater clarity from the government's interpretation of government's interpretation of article 8 duties and I hope that the Noble Lord will therefore agree that as part of his consultations that he and his department will engage with and his department will engage with Joint committees and also clarify for us what he is going to lay before Parliament that is not in the bill and what is in the white paper that is going to affect those that is going to affect those considerations that we have when the bill comes forward.

Those things need to be working together and I also endorse the what the Noble Lady
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:36
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-

I am grateful for the engagement we have had with noble Lords on the bill so far and look forward to working with you as the build progresses. I also looking forward to hearing the Maiden speech of the noble Baroness Lady Shields in which I am sure will be excellent. There have always been people who commit fraud. Sadly, this is not a new problem, but over the last decade, fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated in the techniques that they used to steal people's money, using data, technology, and a variety of scams.

Banks and similar entities have transformed their ability to spot and stop fraud, and to protect their customers money. They have invested in new technology and processes, but this Government leaves the public sector has not proactively followed their lead. In 2023, fraud and error against the public sector reached an astonishing £55 billion. That includes fraud against our public services, including those who abuse the tax system. Fraud by dishonest companies that use deception to win public contracts and benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals.

And in 2024 benefit fraud and error stood at a staggering £9.5 billion per year. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services. Erodes trust and harms innocent people. It is, ultimately, public services that suffer. And it is the taxpayer who is the victim of this crime. They are rightly incensed when their money lines the pockets of criminals. It is theft from the taxpayer, from every single one of us.

Delivering this Government Plan for Change is only possible if we do more to ensure taxpayers money is protected and spent wisely. The Government made a manifesto commitment that it will safeguard taxpayers money and will not tolerate fraud or racism anywhere in public services. This bill is part of our planned delivery, so turning to the detail of the legislation before us, part one of the bill contains measures that give public-sector fraud authority, now for the rest of my speech, then the Cabinet Office powers for the first time to tackle fraud against the public sector on behalf of Government departments and public bodies that do not have the capability, capacity, powers to do so.

Noble Lords will know the scope of the activity of the state's past and they will attack on abilities whenever they can find it and the impact is not just under state but on real people. For example, in a case referred to PSF eight earlier this year, a firm received £370,000 in funding to receive skills funding, having it believed to create the false impression that the criteria by mid, when indeed they were not. Not only does the fraud stuck in the money is debated from people who could legitimately benefit from it.

In another example, a grant of £125,000 was awarded to a youth group facing on community activities and did not go to the intended purpose but it was, it was believed, defrauded. That money would have had a direct impact on the ground in the community, but did not because we were defrauded, as were that community. But at the moment it is difficult for those that have been defrauded or the PSF eight or other authorities to take the kind of action that the public expect against these and much larger frauds that take place.

It is extraordinary that they cannot get the necessary information to take enforcement action or recover funds. Part one of that bill puts this right. It builds the foundational structure for a long lasting change in how public authorities take action and a Broadway not to do so now. Firstly, the bill will provide the PSF they with powers to obtain search warrants from the court to enter premises as part of the investigations, as well as the skills case I mentioned before the PSF eight would have been able to look into the premises, see payroll and employment efforts with that they were entitled to the funding or not.

And the courts will be responsible for arresting suspects if required. Secondly, the bill contains measures for the PSF eight to compel businesses and individuals to provide information whether there is a suspicion of fraud against the public authority and penalised them if they do not. In the youth group case they could have required business records to be provided using these powers. Separately, it also provides hours for them using the investor Powers act 2016, authorising seem by the Commissioner's office.

When fraudsters conspire this power investigators to invest their network and the bill also enables information sharing between the PSF eight and other parties before the investigation vital in tackling multiagency cases. Thirdly, the bill introduces the power to impose civil penalties on behalf of other who have or have tried to commit fraud. Penalties can be used as an alternative method of taking action against fraudsters, compared to often lengthy criminal prosecutions. The introduction of civil penalties for fraud means they can make meaningful consequences for breaking the law, even when criminal prosecution is not appropriate or viable.

The bill will introduce new debt to recovery powers to the PSF SO that we can get public money from those that can afford to repay but refused to do so. This includes powers to recover fraud on ever related debt from an individuals earnings, using a deduction or directly from financial accounts using a direct deduction order. These are broadly similar to existing powers used across Government, including by HMRC. I would like to reassure your logic tells that there will be strong safeguards in place for these powers to ensure vulnerability and deductions are affordable and fair.

The PSF eight authorised investigators and officers will be highly trained to the same standards as those for the criminal powers in part one and will be embers of the Government counter fraud and progression which such effort in integrity which members must meet. And, finally, to interest something we saw over the pandemic, this bill will from six to 12 years of the limit for civil claims to be brought in cases of COVID fraud. Giving public authorities more time to investigate comp cases related to those that exploit in national emergency for personal gain.

It is an affront that some people use the time of a national crisis to dip into the public purse and this Government is committed to taking action of which this is the first step. Turning to part two of the bill, this is focused on addressing fraud and error Social Security system. Here the bill will modernise, extend and strengthen DWP's powers, bringing it in line with other bodies such as HMRC. This introduces new powers that improve their access data that can be used to find an defraud fraud and error more quickly and improve the DWP's ability to recover from taxpayers.

Taking each of these in turn, firstly, there are comparable powers in the PSF eight which will allow authorised investigators from the DWP to apply for and obtain search warrants to seek relevant to relations. These powers will be used by specialist DWP organised crime indicators. This will reduce the reliance on the police and as in their case these powers will be used only when approved by the courts and the police will continue to be responsive of arresting suspects. Secondly, the investigation of fraud, at present the DWP have the power to look at a list of third parties which does not negate key organisations and sectors that could help to prove or disprove suspected fraud, for example airlines that might well travel records that are relevant to investigations of fraud.

To add to that, there is limited ability to request them to be sent electronic and currently the DWP cannot make someone provide this information digitally. This approach is somewhat outdated, in a digital age and undermines how the changes are long overdue. The bill widened how the DWP can compel information from and it will enable us to require the information to be provided digitally by default. This is comparable to the information gathering provisions I described from the PSF eight earlier.

Thirdly, the bill makes provisions for the DWP's new eligibility verification measure which would ensure the department, which would enable the Department to require banks or other financial institutions to provide crucial data to help identify incorrect benefit payments but might be getting as a result of not meeting their benefit. Such as if someone has too much in savings which could make them ineligible for a benefit, or if they are fraudulently claiming benefits they should be living in the UK. This data will mean we can identify potential incorrect payments much sooner for key eligibility criteria.

We know how people will be busy and sometimes genuine mistakes happen. That is why this measure is so important, as it will not only help identify potential fraudulent cases that require further investigation, but it will help to identify errors. Ensuring the DWP can correct errors quickly, preventing people from building up large debts that they building up large debts that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to stress to your I want to stress to your Lordship House, under their eligibility verification measure, the DWP will not be able to access people's bank not be able to access people's bank accounts will look at what they are spending and the DWP will not share any personal information with banks. any personal information with banks. This data will be considered without the presumption of any wrongdoing, the presumption of any wrongdoing, no decision about benefit entitlement will be made from the data gathered through this measure data gathered through this measure alone and it will remain the case that any final decision about someone's benefit entitlement will someone's benefit entitlement will always be taken by a human being.

The Information Commissioner noted this proposal addresses many of the this proposal addresses many of the concerns the commissioner held about the previous government's proposals the previous government's proposals About DWP's abilities to punish fraudsters with a financial penalty as opposed to seeking prosecutions. Financial penalties can only be in cases of Benefit Fraud, the case cases of Benefit Fraud, the case cases of Benefit Fraud, the case Them against any type of DWP payment, if we had a future grant scheme similar to the Kickstart employment scheme, we could ensure money could be recouped, ensuring more fraudsters committing a wider range of fraud can be dealt with swiftly without going to court.

The bill contains new debt recovery powers for DWP, enabling the DWP to recover money in cases where a person owes the department money but is not in receipt of a benefit or pay-as-you-go unemployment where there are existing powers. Only to be used where people refuse to agree to voluntary repayment terms with DWP. The bill would enable the banks, to obtain from banks whether banks, to obtain from banks whether Then determine what is an affordable deduction.

DWP can recover the money from their bank account through one of Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022 or regular deductions, done in a fair and manageable way with time for the person to make any representation and the right to appeal. They will be pushed into hardship because of this action. As a last resort, if someone owes DWP more than £1000 and put their money out of reach of other recovery methods, DWP can apply to the court to disqualify that person from driving for up to two years.

Similar to the powers the Child Maintenance Service has been able to use for the last 25 years in cases where a parent repeatedly refuses to make payments to support their child. It has proved somewhat effective in encouraging debtors to engage with the process. The court will not be able to make it DWP disqualification order if it considers the person needs a driving licence for work or another purpose such as if the person is disabled or a carer. This disqualification order will always first be suspended and repayment terms set by the court.

A person will only be disqualified from driving by the court if the repayment terms the court has set are not met with good reason. This measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage in the debt management system and actively frustrated the debt recovery. Designed to bring people to the table to design voluntary repayment plans with the DWP. An individual keeping money to which they are not entitled is serious. These powers ensure fairness to debt recovery, seeking to guarantee that those no longer on benefits or paid longer on benefits or paid .

Both parts one and two, with strong and new safeguards including provision for independent oversight and reporting. The Cabinet Office and DWP will commissioning His Majesty is Fire and Rescue Services to undertake investigations on the powers both departments are using. And a similar arrangement in Scotland. Independent Office for Police Conduct will handle any serious complaints that arise from the new Bruce -- use of powers for the procedure. The police investigation and review commissioner will deal with similar matters in Scotland.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office will appoint an independent person to inspect the enforcement unit powers of the bill. The work will complement and build on the oversight provided by the Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will appoint someone to oversee the work and effectiveness of the verification measure in line with the Code of Practice. They are required to publish. Drafts will be aware ahead publish. Drafts will be aware ahead of the committee stage of the bill.

People are able to make representations or appeal decisions. The roots will be clear and provide opportunities to challenge the government's approach. Many of the measures are not novel to government. They modernise existing powers and bring the DWP and PSF a in line with other public bodies such as HMRC. The bill will help deliver the biggest crackdown in public sector fraud in a generation, expected to save one half billion over the next five years as part of wider action indeed weepy's efforts to save 9.6 billion.

The bill delivers the biggest operate to the counter fraud powers in more than 14 years. Bringing new powers to tackle fraud across the public sector by empowering the public sector fraud authority and not before time. Our approach is tough but fair. Tough on criminals who cheat the system and steal from taxpayers, tough on people who refuse to pay back money but fair on claimants by spotting and stopping errors earlier. Helping to avoid people getting into debt. to avoid people getting into debt.

There on those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system, found taxpayers ensuring system, found taxpayers ensuring every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it. I beg to move. who need it. I beg to move.
12:52
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
The question is this will be read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a second time. It is a pleasure and a privilege

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure and a privilege to open my remarks by looking forward to unwelcoming the Maiden speech of my noble friend. Throughout her career she has embodied the highest ideals of public service, courage in the face of complexity, integrity under pressure and a commitment to the pressure and a commitment to the public good. We are fortunate to have her voice in your Lordship have her voice in your Lordship House. Now to the matter of that matter before us, the bill arrives with an ambition to protect public money from fraud.

We welcome that ambition, supported and wish to see ambition, supported and wish to see it succeed. I have a note here to thank both the Noble Baronesses, the ministers, but I do genuinely mean how wonderful and constructive they have been, massively informative in have been, massively informative in the briefing sessions, and the officials who have responded to numerous queries and questions posed. But let me be clear, support for the goal must not mean silence for the means. Fraud is theft from the taxpayer and an insult to every citizen who plays by the rules.

Every pound stolen is a pound and 90 pupils in classrooms, patients in hospitals. To tolerate fraud is to tolerate contempt for those who trust us with taxpayers money. Before I entered the House, I worked in several areas of government, including the Cabinet Office during the coalition years. When the noble Lord looked at efficiency measures, fraud is not merely a technical failure, it is a cultural one. It failure, it is a cultural one. It was not indifference, it was in ignorance, a culture where it was safer to overlook than uncover.

Ambition became cautious and initiatives dwindled to a timid proof of concept exercise. Today it is called test and learn yet 15 years later one wonders how much more learning we really require. And what is the Cabinet Office's role in the new bill? The government proposes expensive new investigatory and enforcement powers for the public sector fraud authority within the Cabinet Office. These powers include the authority to compel sensitive financial disclosures, seek court warrants to enter premises, access personal bank records without duty to inform those whose accounts are being accessed and impose financial penalties.

All powers are to be imposed administratively and without explicit authorisation. Clause 7 grants powers akin to those of police to seek warrants on searches and seizures. Enabling officials to have sufficient penalties without scrutiny. The bill proposes an independent reviewer under clause 64 to oversee the powers but a closer look reveals this reviewer possesses no statutory authority to halt or reverse any potentially abusive decisions. There terms, resources and remit are controlled by the Minister whose decisions they are tasked to oversee.

Search amendments risk creating oversight in name only. The Cabinet Office's enforcement unit will lead this charge. But who are they? How many officials in this unit, we have been told 25 to date. But will this information be published. What expertise do they possess and what data will they use? These questions remain unanswered. It remains entirely unclear what types of fraud these new powers will enable the Cabinet Office to investigate. The governments Explanatory Notes suggest public sector fraud suggest public sector fraud Beyond the traditional domains.

This raises an immediate bureaucratic contradiction. If departments correctly like powers or resources to tackle fraud effectively, surely the logical step would be to empower those departments directly? If the departments already possess sufficient powers but do not want to use them, we risk them keeping complex fraud cases in-house, and transferring others to Cabinet office, outsourcing responsibility to difficult decisions. The Cabinet Office itself is under new statutory -- no statutory obligation to accept this. And there has been no information on what types of fraud the Cabinet Office will accept or decline.

The Cabinet Office recently announced staffing cuts, we face the scenario of departments offering to off load their most complex cases to another department that is undergoing productions and will be in equipped to pursue them. There will be diplomatic gridlock -- bureaucratic gridlock. There will be serious fraud quietly slipping into administrative oblivion. The scale of the problem we face is staggering. The National Audit Office reports detected public sector fraud amounted to 3 billion last year with the true scale estimated to be possibly £28 billion.

Benefit payments alone lost 10.8 billion to fraud and error. The bill's own impact assessment forecast is 22 The bill's own impact assessment forecast is 22.8 million as a best case scenario in financial return for the Cabinet Office's new powers. We cannot allow a situation where the Cabinet Office is a second rate Bailiff, ignoring the haemorrhage of taxpayer funds in plain sight. The House supports the fight against fraud but not blindly. Our goal must be a lean, sharp and Stolen funds and does not forget the dignity of the citizens it serves.

I look forward to the debate and Committee stage where the House improves legislation, ensuring it not only sounds good in a press release but works well in the real world. We own the taxpayer something better than good intentions, we owe them system that truly works.
13:00
13:01
13:01
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
speeches, including that Maiden speeches, including that Maiden My lord, stamping out public sector fraud is a priority, it is a fraud is a priority, it is a despicable crime, they undermine our public services, and they hurt, in public services, and they hurt, in the end, the most vulnerable. But I must say that this bill, at least to my eyes, has some serious flaws. my eyes, has some serious flaws. Part one focuses on investigation of fraud outside of the tax and benefit fraud outside of the tax and benefit system.

But I was surprised, as I read it, to find it has nothing to read it, to find it has nothing to say on whistleblowing. I'm certain without a powerful whistleblowing framework that keeps whistleblowers safe from retaliation and leads to investigation most bad actors will investigation most bad actors will escape investigation. And if the Minister doused me on the importance Minister doused me on the importance of whistleblowing, I ask a look at the speeches by the director of the serious fraud office, who is even willing now to incentivise whistleblowers because they are so vital.

He taught the all Parliamentary group on corruption and responsible tax in April, that the number one need he has four parliamentarians is to get in more whistleblowers. Whistleblowers identify where in the haystack wrongdoing is hidden. And provide vital evidence. Or consider indeed the words of Lord Livermore, who is more frequently the government minister engaged in the debates that I am involved with. But in response to a question from me in February, and I quote his words, he said " I met Tom, the COVID counter fraud Commissioner, he told me he is considering a whistleblowing mechanism to enable the public to draw attention to abuses they are aware of." I really ask the Minister to go back and look at this issue because if she talks more broadly to investigators, she will discover this is an absolutely critical area, which needs to be seized upon immediately.

My Lords, in regard to the second part of the bill, I take on board the concerns of UK Finance, but the built risks not achieving its objectives. The role given to banks, to verify eligibility for benefits, and to recover money, seriously needs a rethink to provide proper customer safeguards. It makes no allowance, for example, the people with low financial capability, nor even for those hiding funds to escape domestic abuse. I am really concerned that it creates two classes of citizen.

Those with full rights in our society, protected, for example, by the FCA's and Shima Judy, and the lower class, defined as benefit recipients, who are investigated without cause, and treated as a suspect class. But what is absolutely clear, listening to the finance industry, is that bad actors, especially the gangs would have no difficulty at all working around all the new rules and programs. The Minister must be aware that any serious crackdown on fraud has to tackle the organised crime gangs that conspire to commit welfare fraud on an industrial scale.

One gang, that is one loan, was convicted last year, a 53 million Universal Credit fraud. Unfortunately, that was a very rare success and I wonder if the Minister could tell me today, because I cannot find it anywhere, what percentage of welfare fraud is the work of these organised gangs. And I suspect, in reality, that number is very large. My Lords, the main tool in this bill is to initiate fishing expeditions and from wide experience across the fields of investigation and of fraud, fishing expectations are the sort of laziest and ineffective way of fighting wrongdoing.

My Lords, if anyone doubts the capacity of DWP to get schemes like this wrong, look at the Carer's Allowance scandal, which particularly exercises my colleagues. My noble friend, Lord Palmer will elaborate, but 136,730 people are caught, at present, in outstanding debt for Carer's Allowance overpayments, which are not their fault, but for which their lives are being devastated. And I fear that they, and people like them, will be among the primary targets in the way this bill is crafted.

That they never actually committed fraud, they just failed to understand impossibly complex rules, understand impossibly complex rules, or to identify DWP's mistakes. DWP must of course crackdown on fraud. must of course crackdown on fraud. But it needs to be informed by best practice. And on that basis, I believe this bill needs a significant rethink.
13:05
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Baroness Kramer, who was really underplaying her expertise in earlier statements. There is a certain level of dej vu about this bill, as has been mentioned. Many of us spent a lot of time debating its predecessor under the previous government, and it is nice to see at least some of the band getting back together. I would like to start by acknowledging this reincarnation has been significantly improved from the last version and the changes that have been made do go a long way towards dealing with many of the issues that members from across the House raised last time around.

But...! I should also start by saying I hope my desire to clampdown on fraud is well-known, and I do completely understand the need to try and reduce the roughly 10 billion access to fraud error that arises within the system I strongly support the strengthening of the power set out in part one, although I do share some of the concerns raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Finn, in that respect. But I cannot help but suspect the strengthening of the power, that concentrating on the Cape abilities and confidence of the agencies that should be investigating and recovering fraud losses, would be more likely to achieve more.

The utter uselessness of the National investigation service, in recovering COVID fraud losses is a good example. It seems to cost more to run than it has recovered, and I note from today's times that it is about to be closed down. I'm going to concentrate most of my comments in part two, relating to the social security aspects. Firstly, I think there is the question of proportionality of these measures. I have been somewhat struggling to understand the impact assessments. Like most of these things, it's an off a lot of pages are not a lot of information, it is time the government got its hands together on impact assessments.

But as I understand it, the measures will only raise initially less than 180 million a year, rising to 500 million after the 2030. I would be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could confirm what the actual number is, if I have got that wrong. Set against that is the direct cost of the departments of around 42 million per year, the cost measures will impose on the banks that will have to provide the information, which the impact assessment makes no attempt to quantify.

The noble Lady perhaps provide an update on what those costs are supposed to be, and whether the bank will be reimbursed in any way for them? That net recovery is a very small proportion of the estimated losses, two-5% of recovery is a very small return, when set against the imposition of what is a really intrusive power, that will force banks to scan all of their accounts, the benefit payments and eligibility indicators. It is worth pointing out this scanning department is not a one-off one, it is potentially effectively continuous for periods of up to 12 months, which can be extended, as and when.

Let's be clear, whilst the banks will only provide information to DWP on those accounts, and connected accounts, which meet the criteria set out, in order to achieve that, the banks will have to scan all accounts define the scan all accounts define the information. The government already has significant powers, so can I ask what assessment it is undertaken and what can be achieved if those existing powers were used more effectively. It would be much better to prevent fraud error in the first place, rather than after the event.

Is the noble Lady satisfied the DWP is doing everything reasonable to that effect? Levels of fraud, fraud and error, seem extremely-sexually there is Morgan do upfront which might remove the need for some of these changes. Redesigning the benefit and claims processes, such as removing cliff edges, for making the process clearer and easier, it can go a long way to reducing error. We know the Pension Credit forms are so long, they put off people even so long, they put off people even applying.

Then there is the physical -- Philosophical question of carrying out blankets without suspicion, this makes benefit claimants will -- Feel like second class citizens and spied upon, that class citizens and spied upon, that we have it lay distrust them. -- It we inherently distrusted. Today's report reinforces it, to quote the Chair of the committee, " We heard evidence of the process of engaging with the DWP too often lead to mental distress. Deep-rooted cultural change of the DWP is desperately needed to rebuild trust." My Lords, it is quite hard to see how the measures in this bill will contribute to rebuilding the trust.

Another philosophical question is whether it is right to treat fraud and error in the same way. In particular, where the error The noble Lady rightly refers to some of the new safeguards that have been introduced into this incarnation of the bill and I would like to probe a few of those if I may. First of all, there is a number of codes of practice that must be issued under the bill, before actions can be taken, I was going to ask when can we see those, but I am pleased to say, I am very grateful the noble Lady has confirmed we will see those before committee, so can I just ask perhaps they will be sent direct to those taking part in this debate, and as soon as possible before committee, so we have time to digest them.

The nobility, the minister, had explained only very restrictive information can be requested from the banks and I agree that is a significant step forward from what we had before. However, I think that could be undermined by the enhanced investigator repower closes -- Investigator re-power clauses, which allows information to be contained if DWP has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence was to my question to the noble Lady is that does the existence of an eligibility indicator under the verification processes constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion.

If that is the case, then it does seem to drive courses through the safeguard of restricting the information in the first place. Relating to that, what are the consequences of an eligibility in the case of it being raised? What further investigations need to be carried out before, for exam, the benefit is put on hold? I have heard a number of times, it was repeated earlier, a human must be involved in any such decisions, but I cannot find anything that says that in the bill. Perhaps the nobility could point to where that is.

I don't know what level of human interaction will constitute and what level of seniority and qualifications required. I also welcome the introduction of the independent reviews of the exercising of these new functions. However, the provisions for these independent reviews are somewhat lacking. They do not set out the timings, very limited in scope, there is no definition of what will constitute an independent person. And in particular, an independent review will not be required to opine on the proportionality of the powers and the use which is a very serious omission.

I'm sure will be referring to those matters later in the process. The eligibility verification rights are limited to three specific benefits, being Universal Credit, employment and support allowance, and Pension Credit for that again is another improvement on the previous version. I was quite surprised by the inclusion of the last one, Pension Credit, is the main issue with Pension Credit is that it is woefully under claim, rather than too much money being paid out. I would be quite interested to know why that was included.

Those three can be added to by regulation, so I would be interested to know, are there any plans for those to be added to? There is an obvious loophole in the eligibility verification process, because it only applies to linked accounts within each single bank. A fraudulent claimant can easily avoid this, by having accounts and different banks. Does that mean the deliberate fraud is unlikely in practice to be identified under this bill? Which would somewhat reduce its points. As that loop open taken into account when calculating the expected savings? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as mentioned, the banking industry has also raised concerns about the bill, including conflict with their existing crime statistics, differences between the duty, and vulnerability guidance, diversion of resources from crime capacity, and safeguards around data access, among other things.

I would be interested to understand what meeting the noble Lady has had with organisations such as UK Finance to ensure those sorts of concerns have been, and will be addressed. Lots of other matters I could raise, but given the time, I will raise just one more, which is the driving licences what occasion closes. That does seem extremely arbitrary. I would just like to understand a bit more about the logic applied to more about the logic applied to that. What other measures might have that.

What other measures might have been considered. So, my Lords, I do acknowledge the bill has been greatly improved from its previous incarnation but there is quite a lot incarnation but there is quite a lot of issues that you remain. The noble Lady has been generous with her time, and as always, is constructive time, and as always, is constructive in her approach, so I look forward very much to further discussions and debates as we go through the next stages, as well as the maiden speech stages, as well as the maiden speech from the noble Lady, Baroness Gale men.

-- Baroness Spielman.
13:15
Lord Bishop of Lichfield Portrait The Lord Bishop of Lichfield (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I'm glad to see the name of Baroness Spielman on the speakers list for this debate, look forward to her maiden speech and her future contributions to this House. My Lords, we all need to acknowledge the understandable frustration felt from governments downwards, with waste of public spending and fraud perpetrated at the public's expense. It is white expenditure be managed carefully, ensuring people receive support as needed, and eliminating the fraud and error within the system, as far as that is possible.

The encouragement of my honourable friend, the Bishop of Leicester, who very much regrets he cannot be in his place today, I wish to focus on the second limb of this bill. Regarding individual claimants of Regarding individual claimants of This is a matter of morality. To support people into work where they are able, to ensure people can enjoy an acceptable standard of living when they cannot work, or to top up their low income, to deliver a fair and sustainable social security system, now and in the future, these are all moral imperatives.

And addressing fraud and error, ensuring that government can recover money men required, -- when required -- a morally vital matter of obtaining public consent which should be a very welcome outcome of this very welcome outcome of this proposed legislation. Not simply fair and perceived as fair. There is clearly work to do to rebuild trust in the system, and that includes the trust of payments that support will be there for them when they needed. And that they will always be treated with dignity.

As one ingredient of a system, there is need to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The government's efforts to encourage take-up of pension credit is a good recent example of this. There may be circumstances when benefits are left unclaimed for good reasons, but most often this occurs when people do not realise there is support available to them. If this is about access to information, then we must do more to inform. If it is about stigma, then we must state clearly that our social security system, like our schools or our health service, is a public good on which people should not be ashamed to draw when required.

I welcome the Department's plans to review and improve its safeguarding practices through wider reforms on disability benefits. Ensuring that people are always treated with respect is a necessary step towards earning trust. And it's particularly timely, as the noble Lord has already pointed out, that this debate coincides with the publication of the work and pensions Select Committee report on safeguarding claimants. Fraud, error and recovery will inevitably overlap with the Department's safeguarding responsibilities. And that committee's report highlights some of the tragic things that have happened to people made physically vulnerable by the circumstances, who interact with a system which can often feel complicated and impersonal.

I really wish the Minister and the Department well in reviewing safeguarding and making important changes needed for the sake of those people. The expansion of social security means that millions of people are potentially within the scope of this bill. Half full children live in a family which interacts with the system in some form. And there is concern that expanding DWP's recovery powers through direct deduction orders might risk infecting children at risk of poverty -- affecting.

It would be good to have assurance about the affordability assessments to be made before recoveries occur. There is considerable concern, already voiced in this debate, but removing driving licences. And the comparatively low threshold at which this could happen, even if court approval must be sought. This, too, could impact children who are not at fault for the actions of their parents, as they might miss out on activities, opportunities and vital services if their parents are no longer able to drive.

Particularly in issue in rural areas. At the time of competing priorities and limited financial resources, a bill which focuses on cracking down on fraud has arrived in this House before the publication of the child teacher had to. In the diocese where I serve, I hear more about the latter than the former. And I think the government should be wary that this bill does not inadvertently limit their room for manoeuvre in reducing childhood. I also wish to express some concern or caution about the risk of overreliance on automated algorithmic systems to monitor the bank accounts of welfare recipients.

With any reliance on automated systems, we know there is a chance that a representing a risk of falls positive matches. Errors resulting in wrongful benefits investigations would have profound consequences for some of the poorest people in society, disproportionately impacting disabled people, elderly people, carers, single parents and those seeking work. While occasional human error is inevitable in the maintenance of complex systems, there is a need to ensure that we harness technology appropriately, and always involve people in potentially sensitive decisions affecting them.

The government has included in the safeguards for the Intervention Intervention in Intervention in further investigations, and of course I welcome that. At its heart the issues we are considering today are not only about money, they are about people. This bill is an opportunity to deal with one challenge facing the social security system, and I look forward to hearing how it ties in with other important issues in that area. That the government is seeking to address.
13:23
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Portrait Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I also look forward to the maiden speech and I congratulate her on having a debate to herself in that regard. I rise to speak today because my antecedents proceed me. I'm a Scot and we therefore worry about money stop by my presbyteries got and we worry even more about money, and finally, I have endured more audit committees than I care to recall. And can I say to Lord Hope, I wasn't here the last time you got the band together as a newbie, I'm glad to come to this debate.

I concur with the Right Reverend Colette who we have just heard from about the underlying rationale of the bill -- Right Reverend Prelate. The importance of fairness, building trust and upholding the integrity of the system. And I want to explain why I think that has come into question in my remarks. The public want prudence from government and attention to waste and tackling of the criminal gangs. This bill is not the performative legislation that we have perhaps seen too much from all sides over the years.

It's about modernising the legal framework, tackling the criminals, building confidence in the system, reliability and fairness into our social security system. And I concur with Grannis Finn, tackling fraud is as much a cultural issue as educative one. But I also disagree with Baroness Finn at we shouldn't concentrate power in the Cabinet Office -- Baroness Finn. It's not an error to build specialist expertise to support cross government action, indeed I think building specialist expertise is an enabler of broad action.

It has to be right that all government have access to powers that the DWP only has, and it has to that the DWP only has, and it has to be right that the statutory powers, and that should not be reliant on whoever brings information to their attention. It is has not been mentioned that this will strengthens the specific enforcement powers for the 10 billion lost through this type of fraud. I want to share one anecdote with the House on this matter.

I am as declared the British Council's vice-chair. In COVID went out exam centres were closed, the FCDO provided a COVID related loan, equity loan of 200 million, equity loan of £200 million. The Treasury now want it repaid in full in the British Council happen not doubt the resources. The board meeting this week authorised cuts, closures and AVs scheme to help pay back that COVID alone. Those British Council employees who last month applied for a VS scheme want to know the government is being equally assiduous in chasing down the dodgy companies who deliver the PPE.

At the heart of the national emergency force to part two of the bill, I assumed would be the most controversial. I want to address the issues we have heard this morning about where is the scale of fraud and the key insight as others have said is, fraud is low for most benefits. The fraud rate for Personal Independence Payments, zero. The fraud rate for attendance allowance, zero. The State Pension, 1/10 of 1%. For incapacity benefits, one third of 1%.

And so on. The fraud rate for every benefit sampled below 4%, with the exception of Universal Credit. For Universal Credit, the fraud rate is 11%. So there is limited fraud in the system but the vessel credit stands out. The overall scale of overpayment each year is £10 billion, three quarters relates to fraud, and 88% of it relates to Universal Credit. So that is the issue I think needs to be addressed. It has to be right for there to bring enforcement into the 21st century and not require the DWP, as the Minister has said, to rely on 20-year-old Galatians that simply aren't fit for purpose in a digital age.

Not a fit for tackling organised crime. And here I want to talk about the benefit gangs. This time I turned away from the dry statistics and turned to the court reports, and they are both frightening and illuminating. In May last year, just after Rishi Sunak announced the election, and with the business management in this place and in the other place horse trading which registration would make it onto the statute books, in that very week at Wood Green Crown Court, there was a case for five defendants who admitted stealing more than £50 million from the taxpayer.

It involved £5000 to -- 5,000 to 6,000 claims. Some people living in Bulgaria. And they received the money for just two months and then the gang kept the rest for themselves. These full claims were backed by an array of documents, benefits, photoshopped pictures, and the raids on one of the defendants flats turned out three quarters of million pounds in cash. It was billed as the UK's weakest ever benefits can. But this is not an isolated incident -- benefits scam.

2023, similar court report, 2022, money laundered through cryptocurrency transactions. In late 22 the public were demanding action. So can I sum up about the concerns that we have raised about the specific enforcement measures in the bill. It is common ground that the DWP needs to harness data. It's almost common ground that the investigated legwork should not full to the police but to trained investigators. And it's largely common ground that we need to move away from self reporting by claimants as the basis for eligibility.

I say to Lord Hope that quite simply the public want the government to check claimants eligibility. So the question is then can we be assured of the proportionality and the effectiveness of the eligibility cheques. I think many of the fears that have been raised can be properly allayed but there is one or two I want to touch on, the DWP will not be able to access accounts, yet we must tackle the gangs. I disagree with Baroness Kramer's fatalism that the gangs will evade anything we do, and therefore we shouldn't bother with deeper investigator re- powers.

The reality is that we know fraudsters in recent years have become increasingly sophisticated in the ways they steal people's money, the banks have risen to the challenge and it comes to their own customers and we are simply asking them to step up in the same way on behalf of the taxpayer. I would say finally, I would urge the government and this has come up, to be careful in the selection of the individual, to ensure that the individual overseas eligibility verification measures, is sufficiently independent.

All noble Lords know that it's not easy to criticise a government department from the inside. If we look at the experience of prison inspection, over two decades, it's a challenge to speak up. So I suggest it is a role for a courageous leader, and I would encourage Baroness Sherlock who is going to sum up, to look for someone like herself in her former life, for the advocacy side, a fearless champion of fairness. And I would welcome in her as something up remarks, the ministers assurance that the independence we have heard in the annual report will be allayed for the House and properly debated.

To conclude, it has to be right that fraud in the public sector is an evolving challenge and legislation needs to keep a it is right to lean on better recovery of public money when it has been stolen or over paid. People want to see us tackle fraud waste chronology. And for tackling those who exploit the system and recover the money for those who need it, we do as the Right Reverend Prelate said, uphold the integrity of the system and maintain trust in government.

I
13:32
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady in her speech and I hope I can match up to some of her enthusiasm. She may be disappointed. My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my practice at the bar, which is acting for the serious fraud office, my practice involves advising on serious fraud matters. I'm also the patron for the fraud advisory panel, charity with offices at and financially supported by the Institute for chartered accountants England and Wales, and by a number of law accountancy forensic investigation firms and related and professional...

Related professionals and academics. It essentially exists to improve professional public awareness of fraud, and what can and should be done about it. Last month, the noble Lord, the Home Office minister, Lord Hanson of Flint, very kindly gave the keynote address at the annual fall conference, and I'm very grateful to him, and I hope noble Lords and noble Ladies on the Treasury bench will pass on my thanks, for his taking the time and trouble to set up the government's thinking and intentions, with regard to tackling fraud.

My Lords, I will not do much more today than to express a few platitudes and then in agreement with my noble friend, Lady Finn, the reminders to be careful what we wish for. As the noble Lady, Lady Alexander, indicated in her powerful speech, fraud is an insidious crime. Because there are no broken bones and there is no blood on the carpet, because it frequently requires a high degree of ingenuity, and as often as not, it is mysterious, perhaps hiding in plain sight or far away behind a computer screen, it does not seem to attract public disapproval in the same way as crimes of violence.

Indeed, I regret to say that sometimes fraudsters are admired for their brains, while their criminality is forgotten or ignored. In short, my Lords, fraud is a nasty and brutal crime that can ruin lives, heard the vulnerable, and cause untold economic misery. Whether it is committed here or abroad and whether its constants are felt here or abroad, to university to be condemned, as the dishonest criminals that carry it out. Fraud accounts for 40% of crime in this jurisdiction. In welcoming my noble friend, lady Spielman and looking forward to her maiden speech, I must warn her that I have, over the years, become something of a crack record on the subject of economic and a need to increase the weapons this jurisdiction has at its disposal to deal with it.

I have argued long and hard but not always successfully for the increase in the and that of the criminal failure to prevent regime the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill's Acts 2023 introduced provisions relating to the corporate failure to prevent fraud offences, that will come into fourth this coming September. So, no one could accuse this or the last government of undue haste in a. But it will affect only large organisations to find those meeting at least two of three criteria.

A turnover of only over £36 million, balance sheet of £80 million, or accompanied by more than two and 50 employees. That, as I have never been slow to point out, covers only 0.5% of the United Kingdom's corporate economy. And as the equivalent of only prosecuting burglars taller than 6 foot six. Now, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because they have heard me make this tired joke endlessly.

Particularly during the committee stage of the report stage of the stage of the report stage of the economic... The 2023 act. I am sure they are sick of it, but I'm still unconvinced that limitation with was either necessary or sensible. My Lords, there are many large artillery pieces placed before us in this bill. Which are designed to smash fraud on the welfare system, the government more widely, and in other sectors. Do those guns come with the gunners and the shells? In Imperial China, the ball also fought their local rivals knew that they could concede because they have no could concede because they have no fear of an empty cannon.

If their vote was against the emperors rule, they could comfort themselves, with the thought that heaven is high, and the Emperor is far away. Local and effective action is required to effective action is required to defeat fraud. Is this like most Criminal Justice Act bills? Far too long, overcrowded with extraneous provisions, and designed for its rhetorical effect, rather than to improve the investigation and prosecution of fraud. Until the police outside the city of London police force are once again resourced, staff, and train, to understand and to deal with fraud, to gather the evidence and presented coherently to the Crown Prosecution Service, for them to prosecute, the types of fraud that do not currently attract the attention of the SFL, which is concerned with large and complex financial crime, well, I fear, continue to go largely ignored or brushed aside.

The duty officer or brushed aside. The duty officer at the police station will continue to sigh sympathetically and simply tell the poor victim to go and see a solicitor. If a large proportion of the 40% I prefer to is be on the capacity of the police to cope with, we have a problem. And your Lordships house should require some convincing that the measures in the bill, well intended as they may be, will hit the target. Have the government audited the work of the public sector fraud authority? And do they have any empirical evidence as the increased Cabinet Office involvement will achieve what is promised by the bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in his delightfully quizzical way, made some highly important and effective points. Wrapped up in questions, which this government must answer. I very much look forward either later today or in committee to his receiving the answers to which we all look forward. Finally, my Lords, I refer to some arguments raised in the other place about state interference in the private affairs of others, without adequate due process. To take just one example, the now independent but former Labour Member independent but former Labour Member of Parliament, Zara Tana, -- Sultana, No Political Ally of Mine, Said When the Bill Was Being Discussed in the Other Place, She Said As Follows, and I Quote, " There Are Powers in the Bill That Force Banks to Grow through Our Financial Data, scanning for indicators of fraud and error, not publicly disclose, and flagged as individuals to the government.

This will allow the Department for Work and Pensions to seize money directly from bank accounts without due process, suspend driving licences, and even search properties and financial devices. They are not the hallmarks of a free democratic society but the tools of an Orwellian surveillance state." Now, whether that Member of Parliament is exaggerating or not, whether she is right or wrong, the government must meet those arguments with seriousness, and persuade us they are behaving in a proportionate and humane fashion. Inputting those measures into the bill.

Like my noble friend, Lady Finn, I am concerned ministers are giving themselves powers to take punitive actions, without the intervention of the courts, or adequate ability. On the stomach representations of their -- To make respondents on their own behalf. This is a question of constitutional propriety. Finally, my Lords, at this point, it has been raised a number of occasions this afternoon, we ordered the Department for Work and Pensions, driving this collocations, affecting the cost of drivers post disqualification vehicle insurance.

I think you need clarification on this, so we are not double penalising those who fail to pay their DWP debts.
13:41
Lord Rook Portrait Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the bill. And my thanks to my noble friend, Baroness Anderson, for her opening remarks and I am also grateful to the noble Lords for the grateful to the noble Lords for the sizeable support for the urgency of our situation and aspirations of the measures in this bill. I also look measures in this bill. I also look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness Spielman in just a few moments. A hero of mine once pointed out to me that all financial documents are moral documents.

And all financial policies are moral all financial policies are moral policies. And while the measures this bill seeks to address are this bill seeks to address are clearly fiscal, the motivations are rightly and justly moral. In the rightly and justly moral. In the time available, I will limit my remarks to the first part of the remarks to the first part of the legislation. I spent much of the COVID pandemic working with charities and churches, faith communities and local community groups, supporting the most vulnerable members of our community.

While these organisations spend huge amounts of time and money to ensure that their neighbours had food and pharmaceuticals, while they worked to reduce loneliness and isolation to reduce loneliness and isolation and increase the take out of the COVID vaccines as well as other heroic acts of service. Although unscrupulous actors took every opportunity to pick the public pocket. Fraudulently redirecting essential emergency funding, purpose for the most vulnerable, into their own get rich quick scheme. In a tragic turn, some of the same charities and community groups that save lives in the pandemic have not themselves survive the COVID recovery.

While these groups face increased costs and diminishing donations and even greater demand for the services and near devastating cuts in government funding, the vast majority of those who defrauded the government continue to enjoy the benefit of gotten gains. -- Ill gotten gains, collectively to the tune of almost £10 billion. According to the NAO, more than 4 billion was lost through fraud and error, through the bounceback loans scheme, and almost the same amount through the COVID virus job retention scheme, for many charities, bouncing back has been altogether more difficult and in some cases impossible.

In the longer term, many former employees of the voluntary sector and civil society organisations have not retained their jobs. And become subject to their jobs. And become subject to redundancy. Still, as the noble Baroness, Baroness Finn, remarked in her opening speech, there has been a criminal culture of fraud that has been cultivated during and since those COVID years. The National Audit Office cites this type of fraudulent behaviour and activity has only grown in the four years since. And without action will clearly continue to do so for some time.

Decisive action is clearly needed. At the measures outlined in this bill are precisely what is needed. I agree wholeheartedly with my honourable friend, Baroness Anderson, when she says this legislation is both tough and fair. The measures in the bill are timely and necessary. They will enable the Cabinet Office to deal more effectively with cases of fraud and error outside of the benefits tax systems. I agree again with the Baroness Alexander that he makes a great deal of sense to give these powers to the Cabinet Office, and has the necessary expertise to deliver them.

These powers and processes readily available to processes readily available to Departments will provide the Cabinet Office and public sector fraud authority with the capacity they need to pursue those who perpetrated COVID fraud, along with other instances in the future. At a time when all laws are anxious to protect the public purse, I hope that this legislation offers a route towards more effective action, and an efficient means of redress. By providing the Cabinet Office at the PS FA with the necessary powers for information gathering, dissemination of information, search and seizure, detection of communications data, we enable the government to rightly unfairly identify with significant Ford has or is taking place.

By providing the right and improving methods by which to recover these monies, lost to fraudsters, by providing a framework for ministers to impose civil penalties, we empower the government to take action to re-keep losses, and ensure that justice is done. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, if banks are using ever more sophisticated digital resources and capabilities, to reduce the painful impact of fraud on individual members of the public, it follows that government should work with banks to reduce the negative impact By prolonging the timeframe in which COVID fraud can be dealt with, we can maximise the monies return to the public purse, bring to book the public purse, bring to book those who continue to benefit from a crime against the country neighbours and send a clear message that toxic culture where fraud is considered a lesser crime as my noble Lord just mentioned, without breaking bones or causing the speed of blood, no less a crime, that should not be tolerated.

As I understand, only one point billion pounds of the COVID fraud money has been recovered. Meaning there's a lot more to be done. And a lot more time is needed. Finally, as already stated, these Finally, as already stated, these measures are tough and fair. The government's assistance on oversight and safeguarding requirements is welcome and necessary. It clearly makes sense to use legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and models that are established in law and effective in practice. The proposal to use the HM SFR is a specialist along with appointing an opinion chair should provide oversight to ensure it is implemented effectively and fairly.

At a time when millions rely on food banks, and wider social support from the kinds of charities and civil society organisations that we have mentioned earlier and to serve so faithfully through the pandemic, every penny stolen from the government is a penny that cannot be used to help the most disadvantaged to escape poverty. Those who have defrauded the public purse are not simply stealing from the government's bank account. They are stealing from their neighbours, from those most in need. From those who are more deserving of our support.

And most in need of our care. This bill seeks to redress at least some of the damage done by those who have all too easily defrauded the public in years gone by. And puts vital measures in place to confront a worrisome criminal culture which has become all too prevalent in our country and provides a means by which to deter and deal with this behaviour in the future. With this, we returned to the start. Financial documents, our moral documents, and financial policies moral policies.

As noble Lords together I hope we will provide more leadership in passing this bill. I commend the
13:50
13:50
13:50
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
communities schemes mentioned by the noble Baroness Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent at the beginning, to Stoke-on-Trent at the beginning, to the mundane benefits cheat. There is nothing more galling for the public eye think that people who exploit eye think that people who exploit the system, for those who work their guts out and struggle to make ends guts out and struggle to make ends meet, who then see a minority who are claiming benefits that they are claiming benefits that they don't have a right to.

And yet, seem to have a better standard of living to have a better standard of living in the who are working so hard. It can be and is infuriating. But yet, I have some serious reservations I have some serious reservations about how the government is approaching this and parts of the bill at least feel like a bill at least feel like a sledgehammer to crack not. There is sledgehammer to crack not. There is a nagging feeling that the government is going after low hanging fruit and it's become a distraction from the real culprits and deeper problems and indeed some dodgy schemes created by the DWP or allowed by the DWP.

The recent furore about the apparent ease with which some use the mobility scheme to access fancy cars for example, to get state paid insurance, excise duties, servicing and breakdown cover, the upset was of course not about a scheme that allows those with disability to access transport to aid their independence. The British public are fair like that. They want that. Rather it seems to me that the upset was because there were systems, legitimate systems, set-top my private company that run rate ability that were there to be paid.

It wasn't fraud but there was Black's assessments, management who never queried White's customer base world by 17 x 14.7% and executives who were awarded eye watering pay bonuses who boasted the scheme was the largest car buyer in the UK and doing a public service by promoting electrical vehicles to help deliver the transition to green transport. Maybe that is why the government turned a blind eye to what was obviously and what needs to be tightened up. So I think that is more going on when it comes to the issue of welfare being exploited and sometimes this bill allows.

Back to the bill, when I first heard about the public authorities fraud error and recovery bill, no disrespect, it did sound a bit dull, technical, workmanlike. I thought, I won't bother with that. I'm not getting involved. The problem was I then read it. There's a good reason why it has been labelled Big Brother deal. I use charter, allowing mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits -- a new charter. -- Snooper 's charter. I agree that one of the most contentious part of the bill is the age ability verification measures.

But frankly I find them quite worrying. The government seems to be matter-of-fact about this new requirement ensuring that banks and financial institutions trawl through financial institutions trawl through the dataset to highlight where somebody might not be meeting the specifically eligible tea criteria of certain benefits. Apparently the attitude is, if it helps the DWP identify incorrect payments, and verify or otherwise claimants entitlement to public money, it's OK. That's the justification. But I feel queasy. I also think it's peculiar that we think it's OK for the DWP to outsource the dirty work to private third parties.

That our first full and accountable to the public. But also they are being forced into a job DWP should be doing itself. Because coercion is involved, the banks don't have a choice, not being asked if they want to do this. There will be served with a special eligibility verification notice setting out the specific information the DWP requires, and there will be penalty notices for non-compliance. This itself seems an example of huge state over it. This will also mean that banks, Building Societies Act will have to trawl through all account holders databases to identify which match search criteria supplied by the DWP, criteria by the way that is not available to us as legislators to scrutinise, or in fact the banks.

I therefore understand why big weather watch, privacy International and other civil liberties organisations have invariably raised the alarm about what has been labelled spying powers -- Big Brother Watch. Ministers have suggested this is an alarmist hyperbole, a kind of nothing to see here. I do appreciate that this Labour government has more tightly drafted the bill than the previous Conservative government's version. And yes it is good the bill does limit the powers of eligibility verification notices, to only request information about three no benefits, that is good.

But when I'm reading the notes for this, the bill notes that this is the initially the benefits that will be looked at, on the one hand and also the bill contains the authority the Secretary of State can expand the range of benefits at any time in the future when reduced to nodding dogs status rather than being able to debated. I'm sure that details will be subject to debates at the moment to take a step back and note whatever smoke and mirrors the government deployed, the facts are these.

Some people on benefits, and by the way often people with associated accounts that may be a carers guardians, i.e. Account holders not even benefits, will be subject to having their private financial data pre-emptively monitored, intruded on by banks and other financial institutions, in case they are involved in fraudulent activity. Or without the knowledge and all because of a coercive orders given out by that state. In the other place there was an interesting amendment tabled by Labour MP, Neil Duncan-Jordan, he sought to limit the exercise to places where the welfare recipient was suspected of wrongdoing and expressed concerns about "the slippery slope of compelling banks to act as an arm of the state ".

The government rebuttal was revealing. Mr Duncan Jordan was told that this would " undermine the measure entirely as powers in the bill are not intended to deal with suspected fraud but to " help check that claimants are meeting the criteria for their benefits and to detect incorrect payment at an early stage before any suspicion of wrongdoing has arisen". " This is suspicion less surveillance and I don't think that is a good answer to the problems we are trying to tackle. I don't think the government should note on principal at we should intrude on accounts without very good reason.

It risks an important commitment to the innocent reform until proven guilty point while treating all those who claim benefits as would-be criminals. I think that we must remember that in the government's analysis, if it works, this particular measure, this unprecedented intrusion, it is expected only to recover less than 3% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error. Beyond banks buying there are parts of the bill that also make me bulk and I will not go into most of them but I did want to ask the Minister, whether she thinks that boasting about the use of noncriminal penalties is appropriate.

It explained benignly as a way of reducing the burden on the courts that can be costly and time-consuming, that civil penalties will show that there are meaningful consequences for breaking the law. We heard that at the beginning. Even when criminal prosecution is not achievable i.e., there is not sufficient evidence to get a conviction stop should we be welcoming this non-optional use of civil penalties because they have a lower burden of proof? I.e. On the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt? I.e.

It is easier to convert and find somebody guilty if review process is sidelined. Finally, we have talked, other people have mentioned the fact that there is a danger of colliding fraud and error, even though the government goes to great lengths to distinguish between them, when it comes to detection, and recovery, they are indistinguishable in punitive for both. Too often as we have heard from others, overpayment errors are there. The DUP. But little attention is paid to this failure in this bill.

The freedom of information act reveal that nearly 700,000 of the new Universal Credit overpayment that's antidote to the DWP's debt manager system were caused by government agency mistake. Yet all the bills done is focused on making claimants pay the price. An insightful article by Sian Berry quotes that CEO of the public law project, that nobody is expecting the DWP not to make mistakes. However it is incumbent on the Department to take responsibility for those mistakes, rather than pushing the burden onto people, it should be Supporting.

And while the bill is keen to punish even those who make unintended errors, perhaps not supplying the correct paperwork missing deadlines, government itself missing deadlines, government itself could accused of equal negligence. In reply to lots of the issues raised together government will tell us much of the detail on procedures, appeals and fines would contained in three key codes of practice. Yet not even drafted those code of practice were published before the bill finished in the other place and we will not get them, if we do, until committee stage.

This preaches the spirit of the official guide to making legislation that sets out the procedures by which a code of practice should be made available in order to prop reconsider the appropriateness of statutory provision should be made available for we haven't got them. I would say look to ourselves before we start over punishing the most vulnerable. If I can hand you over to something far more edifying. I'm delighted that I'm going to be followed by the noble Baroness Baroness Spielman. I have long admired her often agreed with her from afar, she might not actually call her credibility I hope won't suffer from my endorsement.

Do feel free to distance yourself. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your maiden speech and to many speeches that you will make in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I am still appear for the first time, I am profoundly aware of first time, I am profoundly aware of the privilege it is to speak here. And if the importance of using that privilege responsibly and well for the public good. And I have much to the public good. And I have much to learn from you all. I am especially grateful to my supporters and mentor, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friends, Lord Finkelstein and Baroness Bloomfield Finkelstein and Baroness Bloomfield and to many other noble friends.

And I am beginning to understand the I am beginning to understand the strength of congeniality and support that characterised this House, and
14:01
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
that characterised this House, and hope that I will succeed in upholding this. I sound very English and bear a German surname but I come here with connections from many parts of the UK. My father was English from the Midlands, and my mother Irish. And I was brought up in Glasgow, though I lost my childhood accent when I came south to study. I also came to know something of Wales, spending years at the Wales millennium Centre. But I am here because I spent over 20 years working in the interests of children and young people.

After some years in investment banking, I recognise, slightly belatedly, where my real interests lie, in education above all else. I spent seven years as part of the founding management team at excellent Academy trust. The nearly 7 years as Chair of Ofcom, the exam regulator, overseeing a full program of qualification reforms, and more recently, I served. In years as OFSTED achievements. When we make an inspection model based on dialogue, granted evidence, and emphasising Be a surprise why I am making my maiden speech on this bill, but OFSTED expect many services for children and young people, and in some cases, regulates them as well.

In its work, OFSTED sees many excellent things, often great services, run by principled and highly skilled people. But it also sees things that we would all wish it didn't happen, and tend to avoid talking about, including fraud. More generally, OFSTED does sometimes have to report findings that are profoundly uncomfortable for those whose failings are exposed. Incompetence is one to mention, and ethical slippage is another. And I use that term, because fraud, which is the main focus of this bill, sits at one end of an ethical spectrum.

Some behaviour can be considered either unethical to a greater or lesser extent for example, it is worrying when the interests of children are subordinated to those of adults, contrary to the principles that underlie the policies of successive governments. It is not criminal but it can harm children. It is shocking that there are few people in control of children's education and welfare, who choose to operate outside of the law, sometimes even after a criminal conviction for the same offence. When ethical slippage is normalised, it becomes harder for other adults to sustain their own purpose and integrity.

Cultures are corroded, and actual fraud becomes more likely. To spell it out, when people see others around them successfully cheating a system, at least three bad things happen. First and most immediately, it gives people an incentive to join the cheetahs. This costs -- Cheaters, this cost the public purse and the taxpayers who fund it. Secondly, it corrodes mutual trust in communities. A sense of community derives in large part from a social contract founded in reciprocity. If we no longer believe those around us would no longer contribute to mutual support and they are able and drawn support only when they needed, lose some of our sense of community.

My noble friend, Lord Finkelstein, wrote very well about the importance of reciprocity in the Times this week. And thirdly, we become cynical about public authorities. If we see them as incompetent and ineffective, at preventing or detecting or sanctioning the behaviours that are undermining our sense of community. A loss of confidence in public authorities is destabilising government and hard to redress. And low mutual trust in communities and in government is not conducive to in government is not conducive to individual happiness.

All this makes it important to address fraud and error, promptly and effectively. And I welcome the efforts of successive governments, to strengthen this work. Deterring fraud requires a high likelihood of detection, as well as meaningful sanctions where fraud is found. I will not repeat what has been said by others today, but important points have been made. And I want to make a few observations from my own experience. Having had ultimate responsibility for the regulatory sanctioning process, in a range of cases.

First, the protections for individuals are, of course, very important. But they must be proportionate and properly balanced with a legitimate public interest of deterring and sanctioning fraud. Where protections are extensive and elaborate, the complexity and the cost of taking a case of suspected fraud through to its conclusion, are high. And this can contribute to the creeping inertia, highlighted by my noble friend Baroness Finn. For individuals, those strong protections can mean longer processes. Unprotected processes are actually, in themselves, more stressful at the receiving end.

And if it becomes even more expensive to investigate a case, public authorities. To prioritise the most blatant and expensive cases over lesser and more marginal cases. For example, where a total loss of fraud is small in absolute terms, and any meaningful recovery is unlikely, it is harder for a public body to justify the cost of investigation, unless a case is pushed down the queue. And yet, in action, in the lesser cases, the broken windows if you like, still triggers the undesirable, social, and economic consequences I have already talked about.

The aggregate benefits and costs of embedding strong individual protections must therefore be regularly reviewed, and also, weighed against the wider public interest, and not just in financial terms. And of course, they should include regular system level since checking and swift adjustment of schemes and processes where that is needed. And my last point is that the agencies and bodies that do this difficult work you have to be well supported. Among the millions of decisions made by public authorities, there will always be difficult and borderline cases.

Where say a claim in such a case is properly refused, it can be easy for disappointed claimants to paint the public body and the individual decision-makers as soulless and unfair. And yet, that authority itself should not be casually vilified. True fairness to all citizens, young and old, are maintaining that all important maintaining that all important social contract, depend on those people having the skills and confidence to make those difficult calls. Humanely, but without partiality. So finally, I want to emphasise the noble Lords that the success of these well intended reforms depends on collective support for the people who carry them through.

Without this, the reforms could come to little. To end, I want to thank your lordships end, I want to thank your lordships for listening to me. My watchwords in my previous life were substance and integrity, and they will continue to be my watchwords here.
14:09
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it is a huge privilege for me to follow my noble friend, Baroness Spielman, as she made her exceptionally thoughtful, insightful, speech, to the House. Indicating and showing very clearly the experience she will bring. No surprise, somebody obviously very bright with a Mathematica degree at Cambridge University became a chartered accountant. And I understand she is super fabulous at spreadsheets. A skill which I am sure we can start to use to interrogate all sorts of statistics coming out.

But also, I am conscious that a very successful career in finance, but saw a particular moment that called her in order to try and improve the lives, particularly of young people. In terms of taking on a Masters, I think it was the University of London, the Institute of education, I think most people of course will know my noble friend, Baroness Spielman, for her role as chief at Ofsted. But also, she spent five or six years working as the Chair at Ofqual and speaking with people who worked with her at that time, one of the things they particularly valued about my noble friend was her ability to bring together a top class board and really try and help through some of the challenging times, but also to make sure off Paul continue -- Ofqual continue to be the focus of quality education but also the importance of the young people it was there to serve as well.

Substance, integrity, coming through again. I think we saw that as well role at Ofsted. As my noble friend said to me, in essence, making sure children got the best start in life was absolutely key and she believes the way to achieve that, as we saw, is substance, integrity, and the education they had, so that they were well prepared for the future. We saw this in a different way, because before them, she will already be part, my noble friend had been a founding member of the ArchiCAD Academy, anyone who has been to an ArchiCAD school will know how brilliant they are, so that is a lifelong legacy of which she should be rightly proud.

Perhaps going to offset may have seen a slightly different approach of perhaps the harder side of some aspect of education. But through that experience of what could be done, that is what we have seen a number of schools that are now excellent rise significantly, it is why I think we have seen the education attainment of children rise, is in no part, not solely, due to my noble friend, but as a previous colleague of hers said, nobody knows education better in the round than my noble friend, Baroness Spielman.

I had limited interaction, I think it is fair to say, with my noble friend, when I was a minister. I remember a couple of discussions, aspects. All I will say she had certainly required the teachers look. My parents were both teachers and a warm smile, as we have seen today, but also, she knew her stuff, she also knew how to, as I say, get her point across. But outside of this House, I know my noble friend is currently a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum, obviously a lady of culture.

But there is another element, I appreciate my former MPs in this House as a Lord Young of Cookham, he used to be known as the baronet on a bike, well we now have a baroness on a bike. There is almost nowhere my noble friend won't go without it involving two wheels, rather than four. So, my lordships, also we saw in the quality of the debate today, how my noble friend will contribute to many issues and it is now with that, I turned myself.

My Lords, this bill is very important. And I do welcome the fact that we finally have something to get going. And I say that with genuine passion and also congratulations to the government for getting under way. I am conscious that my own government in the previous administration, while I set out a strategy three years ago, in May 2022, it had a classic in the document of when parliamentary time allows. It was a frustration of mine that we didn't get going quickly to run.

And as I will explain, I am also concerned, in my view, some of the measures that had chained changed since I was in office, -- Changed since I was in office. It might be in recognition of something raising this House already. But as the tone of my speech, I hope will be, I don't think this bill goes far enough, and I will be encouraging the Minister to look again at what they could perhaps do. In terms of, let's get -- Some statistics right.

The noble Baroness, we should think about where DWP hasn't mature people have got the money they are entitled to. I think that is in the region of about £1 billion per year, and 0.4% of the £290 billion that DWP now pays, paid in the last financial year. But if we look at the figures they are stark. We want to congratulate all the people that DWP. I am sure the ministers will take credit for it and that is OK, but I know there is great legacy of activities that we got under way, recognising it was simply unacceptable fraud in our system of well over £7 billion.

The figures that came up this morning showed that fraud is estimated to be £6.5 billion, claimant error £1.9 billion, official error for overpayment, £1 billion. That fraud has come down from the previous financial year, from £7.3 billion for fraud, and £1.6 billion was claimant error, so unfortunately, claimant error appears to have gone up, as indeed has official error, in cash terms. And one of the things I think Noble lordships, it is very easy to get into stats about percentages and similar, and I understand why.

But cash is real. When I was at the department, I think I probably got some of the policies presented to us today. And We have to go further because this is real money. It's the difference of whether we can build a hospital or not. Whether you pay, the policy happening about Winter Fuel Payments. It's the difference about aid overseas. It's the difference, call me a traditional conservative, of actually not spending that money but reducing our debt mountain. Therefore some of the interest that we pay.

Of course it could then lead to other uses of spending. But it's important that we recognise this is real cash. Now, one of the things that, that's why I'm keen to point out that sadly, although concerns being raised by this bill, and I understand why people have these concerns about the variety of powers, and I'm not pretending to comment so much on PSF I but I agree, I would hope the government could take the opportunity to make it a slightly better, snazzy at snap as it were.

In terms of making sure the public know that we are actually serious as Parliament in recovering money from criminals. But I do think that some of the powers that I have heard do seem somewhat Draconian but given what I'm about to say, perhaps I won't be quite so sceptical by the time, when we go through committee. In terms of the other significant amount, and this is where the part of the proposals here are as has already been thought caught on by others, it's actually about trying to avoid claimants making errors in the first place.

I would say some of the definition perhaps of the error by claimant, in may sometimes be a bit generous rather than being fraudulent but nevertheless, whatever we can do to try and prevent people not necessarily having the right claim, making it easier to make sure their records are up-to-date, otherwise we end up with a situation which is very uncomfortable about for example carers allowance, overpayments, and people being expected to pay actually quite a lot of money for not realising some of the changes.

So if there are ways that we can do more of that, that would be very helpful. And I know that the DWP has orally got the powers to go into HMRC and PAYE and that has helped to actually tackle some of this but I do think powers are necessary to go further. As I say, even the debt owed at the end of the last financial year was nearly £10 billion. And that is still a substantial amount of money owed. In terms of thinking through, I could go on about, frankly, callous criminals, trying to use the welfare system as a cash machine, rather than thinking of the most vulnerable which it is there to be for.

Need to make sure the money reaches the people it is supposed to reach. In terms of picking through though, I know that COVID was particularly difficult. And certainly I'm not going to go back over COVID history. But I will point out that actually DWP has been very good at trying to absorb and take, and use technology, so for example there was one particular weekend, basically we found and managed to stop, just in one weekend, we stopped £1.9 billion going to organised criminals.

And that was a way of sophistication and that money we would never, ever have got back. Even when DWP was successful in prosecuting a gang, I think they managed to, that Ford was only about... Only, sorry to sound so glib, only about £68 million. But nevertheless, it is that sort of sophistication that also has led to DWP realising and wanting that it needs to upgrade its powers, and up grade its use of technology in order to make sure that taxpayers' money goes to the people that Parliament has decided to serve -- deserve, need and should have that money.

It is vital we keep that in mind. In terms of, there's a variety of things that can be done about identifying and stopping abuse the system. In terms of retrospective claims, similar, so it's important that we continue with that. In terms of some of the powers people may not be aware, for individuals, the DWP... Sorry, still in my DNA, the government has powers already to go after name specified individuals but it's a very time-consuming process. And this is intended to be somewhat more comprehensive but this is why I think we need to go further.

Technology of course, for us, for the government, has evolved so much. And so has for the criminal and I'm conscious that the banks have written to us saying their concerns about conflicts, I can assure the banks there is no conflict about government, about a Parliament that wants to stop getting criminals money to which they are not entitled and is stopping at people having that potential money in order to improve their lives. I think that's one thing where I agree with them on, the risk for the legislation as it is today, it could be too easy, too quickly, for criminals to do a workaround.

Just think, this may not be as solely obvious, but quite often people would claim Universal Credit and by one of the gaps in the legislation, it only tends to go after the bank accounts where the benefits are paid into. Well, I don't know about other lordships in this house, I have at least four bank accounts myself. And it's a case of, you just move the money within seconds. The sort of things we willing to do, and I'm not sure if it's covered, you'd be surprised how many people, British citizens, other citizens, getting benefits in this country, and then not living here.

And spending that money abroad. It's those sorts of things which I believe the government should have the access to make sure that they can do a comprehensive, without as the principal was said, by the noble Baroness, Baroness Anderson, this is not about presuming somebody is guilty. The issue of going to get these extra bits of information is you have to demonstrably show you think they are guilty, so there's an -- a mixture of issues here at hand.

Ms about taxpayers' money that could be used better. There is also a gap in, I don't know why DWP are not being given arrest powers. A lot of that legislation is supposed to be aligning with the powers available to everybody so I would hope that we can address that. As I say, I'm properly out of step with many other people in this chamber today in this regard. But just think, in a different way, British crime survey is what people perceive of crime, how they feel they have endured crime.

40% of crime nowadays is about fraud. We have done something to address that by making banks pay back money That perhaps should not have gone out of accounts. But nevertheless, don't be surprised that Ford happens. But actually be pleased to some extent that the amount of fraud and error is actually at 3.3% of the money that we do. I would like to see it a lot better, I'd like to see a cash figure put on this but I think we should, be careful, there is a lot of scaremongering but are generally believe the British public want to make sure fraudsters, criminals, do not get a penny, and indeed that we make sure it goes to the most honourable.

-- Most vulnerable.
14:25
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
Is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady coffee and may also take this opportunity to congratulate Lady Spielman for her splendid and insightful speech, and I look forward to hearing more from her in this House. My Lords, a focus on fraud detection, prevention and recovery is most welcome but I seek some clarity to this bill. Since the abolition of the audit commission, the focus on efficiency and effectiveness of local government spending has been diluted.

So if we haven't got the appropriate regulatory structure for public bodies, it is very difficult to then impose another structure and say that somehow we are going to deal with fraud. We have to remember the public-sector is not hermetically sealed, from private sector and proceeds of fraud always go through financial institutions. When we look at those, would we find? That the regulators public interest duties are increasingly eclipsed by a duty to promote industry, growth and competitiveness. The experience of tackling fraud in this country shows us that that is secondary to political conveniences.

For example, existing laws are actually not really enforced. Successive governments have gone out of their way to protect the crooks. We are still waiting for an investigation into the 1991 closure of the Bank of credit and commerce International. Hasn't even begun. In 2012 HSBC was fined $1.9 billion in the US for money-laundering. Then Chancellor, George Osborne, and regulators combined, to urge that US greatest ago easy on the bank. There has been no UK investigation into that this date, despite requests, which have made ever since I have been in this House, most -- no statement has been made to ensure the cover-up by governments and widely tolerated criminal conduct by HSBC.

-- Why they tolerated. Fraud goes back over 20 years and are yet to be investigated. the back has been passed to Lloyds Bank which promise to report by 2018. To this day, no report has been published. In written answers to me in this House, successive ministers have excelled at doing absolutely nothing. They have been less than five prosecutions of the enablers of tax evasion, in 2023/24. Big accounting firms who are advising the Treasury and the government, never ever get investigated for crafting tax abuse schemes.

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 was introduced to tackle corporate tax evasion. But to this day, no prosecutions have taken place. In December 2022, the government sued PPO made pro forma alleged fraud but the case is yet to be heard in court -- med pro. There is a backlog of 75,000 Crown Court and 310,000 Magistrate's Court cases. So the idea that we will be able to swiftly prosecute fraud, I'm afraid is extremely unlikely. There is nothing in the bill which herbs political expediency of cover-ups and perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The second part of dealing with the benefit fraud grants the government : powers to snoop on the back account of the poor, old, sick and disabled. The bill assumes that all recipients on benefits have criminal tendencies and must therefore be denied financial privacy. It empowers DWP to compel banks and financial institutions to examine accounts of benefit claimants and provide required information to help it verify eligibility of claimants on benefits. The banks are required to develop algorithms to search and report information.

Cost of developing these algorithms will be borne by banks and obviously ultimately passed on to customers. Can the Minister say what the initial setup costs will be, and what the annual operating costs for the banks will be, which will be passed on to customers. For the new unrestrained surveillance, no court order is needed. The affected individuals will not be told. And there is no right of appeal against the surveillance. What information will the DWP actually require has not been specified, the government has promised a code of practice but as the Minister indicated earlier, that has not yet been published and will possibly not be capable of being a fully amended in Parliament if I understood correctly.

It is likely to be presented as they do complete. The requested information properly would relate to some thresholds which is exceeded will thresholds which is exceeded will Suppose you give a loved one large sum to buy a piece of furniture. And that money lingers on a summer's bank account for a while. Wouldn't that be construed as having extra savings? therefore be denied at Universal Credit. Will they be fraudsters or whatever. The reporting bank could have severe consequences for individuals.

There is 7 million claimants of Universal Credit, and an error rate of 1% could cause 70,000 people to lose Universal Credit. Can a minister explain who will compensate the innocent people? Bearing in mind the recent post a scandal the idea that computer systems are utterly reliable is simply unacceptable in this case. The bill does not promise legal aid to enable anyone who is negatively affected by DWP's actions to seek advice, or represent themselves in the court.

How are the poorest people then going to get any justice? The DWP cannot apply to the court to disqualify, this is absolutely bizarre, while driving licences? Why not the ability to buy a mobile phone or join a political party perhaps? But it is very bizarre. The legislation would initially apply snooping powers to recipients of Universal Credit, Pension Credit, and Employment Support Allowance, but it is likely ultimately to be extended to all benefit claimants. At the moment, the bill exempts recipients at State Pension but after that, it doesn't follow that the pensioners will actually be exempt.

1.6 million pensioners receive Pension Credit, which opens the door for Winter Fuel Payments, housing, and other benefits. Their bank accounts will come under scrutiny. Pensioners are not exempt, contrary to what some not exempt, contrary to what some are actively saying. We are all one serious illness or accident away from possibly relying upon a Social Security. Ultimately, all of us going to be a. -- All of us are going to be affected. It is no good selling the bill by saying you are targeting a minority, you are targeting everybody.

What is this extent of fraud the government actually refers to? The 2023-24 figure suggested benefits were paid by about 9.7 billion, of which 7.4 billion related to alleged fraud, which is based on extrapolation from a sample. That amounts to about 2.8% of welfare spending. The actual percentage of claimants who indulge in fraud is very, very small, 3.9% for Housing Benefit. 3.9% for Pension Credit. These small raids do not, in my view, justify powers for suspicious snooping on the bank accounts of all claimants.

One has to ask whether this bill is actually even necessary. Drugs, DWP currently has the power to compel prescribed information holders to share data on individuals. If fraudulent activity is suspected. HMRC already shares banking data with DWP. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 financial institutions must also notify a law enforcement agencies of suspicious activities. The payment constitute fraud and error may also arise from DWP's own shortcomings. For example, the form to claim Pension Credit, which opens the door to Winter Fuel Payment and other benefits for pensioners, is 20 pages long.

Asks 243 questions. The form to claim PIP is 50 pages long, and has intrusive questions about matters, such as bathing and personal cleaning. Many people would be embarrassed to answer those intrusive questions. And then discuss them with absolute strangers. At what point does an incorrect answer become fraud. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to tell us that. The Gazette is a vital question. In principle, anyone receiving public money can commit But the bill is only for the old, sick and disabled, it is discriminatory, the normal assumption of law is that people are innocent until proven guilty.

This bill reverses the presumption. It makes a mockery of equality laws, and likely to fall foul of article 8 and 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights. Benefits can be received by Britain's residing abroad, and they could be paid into a foreign bank account. The UK can never, ever acquire the power to snoop on bank accounts subject to other countries regulatory laws. Can the Minister confirm that anyone who puts money in a foreign bank account will be beyond the reach of the UK government's new snooping requirements? Could this also encourage some people had perhaps to deposit their money in foreign bank accounts, and thus develop an avoidance strategy altogether.

The under the bill banks become a de facto arm of the state, and they can no longer really be relied upon to provide confidentiality to customers. I think that is a bad thing. As banks bear the cost of surveillance, there might be tempted to refuse bank accounts to recipients of benefits. That would also be about development. What safeguards are there to ensure the banks cannot actually do this? To avoid snooping, landlords might refuse to have the benefits paid directly into their bank accounts.

Which is a policy pushed by successive governments. So with this bill increase homelessness amongst the poor? Can the Minister publish a the poor? Can the Minister publish a list of possible unforeseen and -- Consequences and how the government is going to deal with them. As an academic, I did research and came to policy recommendations, we always said what might be the 2030 arguments against that policy, and letters in the light of that weigh up -- And let us, in the light of that, what have the options to help us to do that.

So, the surveillance initiated in this bill will not apply to fees, tax dodgers, money- laundering, scanners, or company directors disqualified from holding office by malpractices. No one robbing a bank or committing identity theft is to be deprived of driving licence, but those accused driving licence, but those accused of benefit fraud will be. This bill seems fairly unfair to me, at least it looks that way to me. And I would urge the government to rethink part urge the government to rethink part of this bill.

Thank you. of this bill. Thank you.
14:39
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
First, may I welcome the noble Lady, Baroness Spielman, to the House. Particularly as a fellow House. Particularly as a fellow spreadsheet lover. The public authorities bill has significant indications for justice and the rights of vulnerable individuals. I welcome parts of the bill but there are significant concerns, and I apologise to my frontbench friends for highlighting the problems and not the many things in the bill, which are to be strongly welcomed. The concern is the Bill will introduce an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance.

Understand, this is something new and undermines the presumption of innocence, that anyone accused should have. It will disproportionately affect people who, by definition, are mostly poor. Whether that is because they have got inadequate pensions because they are disabled and find it difficult to get a job or generally struggle to find employment. That's the people it is going to affect. Attempts are being made to paint a picture of the. -- Of the fraudster. To me, it is a person who is on a low income, who is struggling to cope with that situation.

Perhaps they are not as well-organised as members of this House. They live in a state of chaos. That is the person I see who's going to be affected by this bill. Clearly, fraud is wrong. But the paint is dealing with only bad thinking people, I think is misleading to the House. Who are the fraudsters, as far as this bill is concerned, part two of the bill, is people who are already in financial difficulties. And navigating the welfare system is already challenging.

Those who are entitled to benefits will only be further deterred by the threat of surveillance, and potential benefits that would exacerbate the difficulties. There is a real concern, which I hope that we will be able to address during this committee, that this bill will create a second tiered justice system, four people on the poverty line, treating them differently from the rest of the population. We will no doubt be told that the extensive safeguards that are being put in place.

Unfortunately, for those opposed to the principle of snooping, it was a Catch-22 here, that the more safeguards you introduce, the more I am worried that those safeguards are required and the proposals are problematic. And to the extent that the safeguards we can the effectiveness of the bill, it raises the question as to whether the measures are required at all. More safeguards clearly mean the bill is less essential. Now, my first concern relates to the mass financial surveillance. As I say, make no mistake, that is what this involves.

The extensive power is being granted to the DWP, to assess and monitor the bank accounts of benefit claimants. Such powers amount to what has been described as a chilling and disturbing level of intrusion, with a surveillance system that treats all claimants are suspects without any evidence of wrongdoing. And that has been expressed by speakers around the House. My major concern, and this is what we are going to have to consider in detail and that is why it is so important we see the codes of practice, that some of the things which my noble friend said in introducing the bill, the Minister said in introducing the bill, and not in the face of the bill.

And we need assurances on those issues. Before we can write this bill off as acceptable. These particular provisions of the bill. As provisions of the bill. As acceptable. The key to this is the lack of the need to demonstrate probable cause. And this has been widely criticised by civil liberties groups, such as Big Brother Watch, but also by other bodies. Suspiciousness financial surveillance, they argue and I agree that some measures treat all claimants as potential fraudsters, infringing on their right to privacy, without having to demonstrate due course, as I emphasise.

The concern is that this will set a precedent for the future for further unwarranted state intrusion into individuals financial affairs. The Information Commissioner's Office have come back on the bill, and said that some of their concerns have been addressed. their concerns have been addressed. , there are still part of the bill we have to address. My second concern is about direct deduction orders, and the extent to which the legislation would allow the DWP directly deduct funds from individual bank accounts, without a presumption of innocence and without what I would regard as proper due process.

How can we allow administrative body to exercise punitive powers, without appropriate you practice. -- Appropriated you practice. Opposing penalties should be subject to Genesio oversight, to prevent miscarriages of justice. As I have emphasised, remember, the great majority of people who will be affected by the removal of the need for judicial oversight, are poor, inevitably difficult and financial, so for the circumstances, often in a chaotic administrative state, it is I picked up a point made earlier that the decision would always be made by human.

The bill doesn't say that and on the face of it if you read the relevant clause in the bill, there is no requirement for a human to be involved. Again an issue we must return to at Committee. My third area of concern is the disqualification from driving. The fact it gives the Secretary of State power to apply to courts to disqualify individuals from holding a driving licence if they have had two great benefits and have refused to repay the excess.

I cannot concede how anyone thinks this is anywhere like a new idea except trying to achieve headline in the 'Daily Mail'. Even in principle, how can the ability to drive a motor vehicle be determined by the debts that somebody happens to oat the state? I don't think the right to drive a motor vehicle should be contingent in that way at all. The fact, either you are safe to drive or you are not safe to drive. That's the only criteria that should apply.

But even in practical terms, justice should always be applied in an evenhanded fashion. Taking away a driving licence will have grossly disproportionate effects on different people. Those who rely on a car to get to work, not for work, to get to work, will be affected much worse than people who can walk to work. People who have run the children to school will be affected much greater than this those who -- than those who live round the corner from the school.

People who live in good areas with transport links will be more affected than those in remote areas was how can it be just the this form of punishment should be handed out in such an uneven fashion? It would also inevitably need to greater poverty and social problems -- lead. I believe the House has to consider this bill with a precautionary perspective, highlight potential overreach by the government, and identify the risks to individuals freedoms and privacy.

Someone asked the question, why haven't the banks been asked about whether they want is obligations. Well, they have been asked. And we Well, they have been asked. And we have had the submission from the body UK Finance. Which represents the financial industry as a whole. They have provided us with detailed comments of that will, and you read the detailed comments that we have had on this occasion in the previous occasion and it's quite clear that they are saying they don't want to do this.

They have been asked and they don't want to do it. If they have been asked, they set out number of criteria that need to be addressed and running out of time. I've got more to say. The point that really strikes home with me is the banks have a duty of care towards the account holders. And they tell us, but reconciling that duty of care with these obligations under this act, under this bill, post them with considerable difficulties stop we have to listen to what they say.

So they have been asked and they have expressed considerable, practical reservations. My objections are based in principle but they are still raising these progressions. Finally, -- these reservations. Finally the bill on fraud and Everest currently silent on errors made by the DWP. -- Fraud and errors. I'm reflecting remarks and errors. I'm reflecting remarks made by noble friend Baroness Lister who regrets not being able to be here today. But she points out that in 23/24, there were almost 700,000 in 23/24, there were almost 700,000 new Universal Credit overpayment accented into the DWP's get manager system.

Research from the public law project indicates that the DWP's default approach is to recover all official ever overpayments on Universal Credit, with relief dependent on individuals being able to request inaccessible discretionary measures. The bill provides an opportunity to correct this unfairness. And my noble friend plans to table an amendment at committee stage which would alter the test for recovery of Universal Credit official error overpayments. Quite a mouthful. Universal Credit official error overpayments. So that they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

To conclude, there is much to welcome in this bill. Public money should be used appropriately. But ultimately, I believe the measures here have to be believe the measures here have to be exercised with greater compassion than we have seen so far.
14:52
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, first of all I would like to congratulate Baroness Spielman on her maiden speech. We welcome her to the House. I rise today is Liberal Democrat to speak on firm opposition to the public authority fraud error and recovery bill. While we are all sharing a common goal of preventing fraud and ensuring the integrity of public funds, this bill, under the guise of fraud prevention, risks entrenching mistrust, undermining Civil Liberties, and further marginalising our most vulnerable citizens.

Baroness Anderson, when she spoke originally at the beginning of this debate, says that it goes beyond the words that are used which is lining the pockets of criminals. It goes well beyond that. This legislation should concern anyone who values fairness, Porsche nullity and compassion. My noble friend onus Crema spoke about whistleblowing and I trust the Minister in her reply will focus on that as well. Let us begin with those in receipt of carers allowance. Many of us in this House will have heard harrowing stories of carers, often quietly heroic individuals who have faced harsh penalties for minor, often unintentional administrative errors.

These are not fraudsters. These are not fraudsters. They are parents caring for disabled children, spouses supporting terminally ill partners, or elderly people looking after love ones with dementia. The reality is that carers allowance rules are notoriously complex. Just a few extra hours of work or a slight rise in income and lead to overpayments. Something many not even realise until months later when they received a demand to pay thousands of pounds. Under this bill, such individuals will face expanded surveillance automatic bank deductions and essentially public shaming, all without clear distinctions being made between honest mistakes and intentional fraud.

This is not justice. This is cruelty wrapped in bureaucracy. This bill proposes sweeping powers to access banking data, as many lords have suggested. Let us be clear. These are banks spying powers. Powers that would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to trawl through bank records of millions of people, not because they are suspected of a crime but because they received support they are legally entitled to. I raise with the noble Lady the Minister at a briefing, the fact that within this bill, there is no mention of things which all accountants know about witches the garnishing of bank accounts which already exists.

The powers constitute a fundamental assault on right to privacy. In normalises mass surveillance of the poor by doing nothing to address the significantly larger issue of tax fraud which I know costs the Treasury the six times more than anything fraud receives a fraction of this attention. Noble Lord see Referred to this, and I think the problem is that in reality, the fine line, the grey line between tax avoidance and tax evasion, it's really sometimes a grey line. And it's also how HMRC and its predecessor the revenue tackle the problem when they find that someone has evaded tax.

-- Its predecessor at the Inland Revenue. It is generally done by financial penalty. I'm reminded of the anecdotal story of the person told of the financial penalty for his unaffordable error, he said because he pay in cash. Where is the proportionality. As Lord Faulks pointed out earlier in this debate. And as the Reverend said, affordability assessments are needed. Furthermore, this bill conflates fraud with error. Fraud accounts for just 2.8% of benefits expenditure.

It now to pushed by this legislation implies widespread deceit amongst claims, and in truth, many overpayments arise from the bewildering complexity of the system or administrative mistakes by DWP itself. The states which cost the public and hundred million pounds last year. -- State. It right that someone with a disability, who disclose all the financial details in good faith can be told months later that Leo thousands due to a departmental oversight -- that they have to pay thousands. Is it right to carer of a -- on the brink of burnout is treated as a criminal because of a minor misallocation? One case shared was that of a woman in her 60s, housebound, with several disabilities, and complex mental health needs, after disclosing her private pension when applying for Universal Credit, she was told she would be overpaid and faced monthly deductions.

Even from her Personal Independence Payment. A nonce -- non-means tested payment. Her crime? Being honest. Her punishment, the financial stress and loss of trust in the very institution meant to support her. My Lords, I understand the purpose of this bill. But it's focused on those people who can least afford it. And very often those people who can afford it are still being able to get away with the system. This bill does not fix

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- It weapon Isaac. I would like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness Lady Anderson for
14:59
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
her opening speech outlining the purpose of an some of the details contained within this bill. And for all the engagement she and the noble Baroness Lady Sherlock, who I think is in the running for a new job, closely followed by the noble Baroness Alexander. And I think hot on the heels of my noble friend lady Spelman. We greatly appreciate the engagement we have had and it has been very helpful. I also want to pay tribute to my noble friend Baroness Spielman on her maiden speech in this debate.

It was indeed excellent. And I know that others in the House will join me, to welcome her to these ventures, and I hope that my noble friend has got the message loud and clear that we are pleased to see her -- to these ventures. The words that describe her, substance and integrity, are accurate. I want to be clear from the outset. We on this side of the House support the principle of this bill. Fraud against the state is unacceptable and tough measures that we can't legislate for in this place to crackdown on disreputable people and fraudsters who steal from the public purse are not just welcome, but are essential.

We have a moral and fiscal duty to address this. And I echo the point raised so eloquently by the noble Baroness Alexander. The moral aspects of the bill are well referenced to by the I was disappointed in the other place that the Minister refused to acknowledge our shared ambition on this bill. Although we are on the same pages as the government when it comes to preventing fraud, we have some serious and genuine concerns and questions about how the objective can be achieved.

One question we have is the level of ambition to combat fraud. Fraud is a serious matter that needs to be addressed robustly, we lose a total of 55 billion-a-year to fraud across the public sector. But the bill before us is set only to recover 1.5 billion. 2.7 percent. Why have they anticipated returns on the target solo? Perhaps they would like to rethink the target. Can the noble Lady the Minister please tell us how much each one of these benefits contributes to the overall figure for public sector fraud? Can she also provide a breakdown of these figures, covering all welfare streams, to the House for our review and in preparation for Committee stage? Why are certain aspects of the bill not ready? The Cabinet Office proposals.

We have already seen this with the Employment Rights Bill with hundreds of government amendments being added to try and correct errors in the drafting of the legislation. I could not have put it better myself, as the noble Lord said, His Majesty's Government needs to get their act together on impact assessments. Do we think it is a good idea to lose the skills of Lord Faulks and other hereditaries The bill is introduced without key impact assessments being available, we have no way of measuring the cost to banks, cost to DWP, the projected return on investment and the cost per head in the entirety.

The fact we do not have the assessments means we are discussing proposals with much of the relevant information unavailable. It would also be incredibly helpful for noble Lords in this House to have a breakdown of the fraud figures the government has referenced throughout the passage of the bill in the other place, knowing the details of the challenge we face will allows to make a better assessment of where this bill could be improved to better meet the challenge. I hope the noble Lady the Minister can provide this information to the House soon.

Having this information to hand is important in allowing us in this House to do our job properly. It simply is not good enough should be scrutinising these proposals without the information we need to make an informed decision. We want to work collaboratively with the government to improve the bill. There may cover the section on the bill relating to the Cabinet Office, the intention of the bill in combating fraud in government departments is noble and we have already had unanimous support across the House.

We are concerned these proposals do not go far enough, for reasons I will outline. Changes to the public sector fraud authority, which I will call it the PSF a, are a concern for others. The enforcement unit others. The enforcement unit currently has 25 staff, the authorities tasked with investigating fraud across every department. A massive undertaking. Is she confident that the resources, the point already raised by the noble and learned Lord, the resources of the PSFA are sufficient? The returns are far lower, .002 percent.

How much resource will they need to make returns of 25 percent? The noble Lady the Minister said the government will scale this operation, but we need to know how this will work if we are to approve the proposals now. Baroness Coffey has made the point that the bill does not go far enough. My noble friend's point about percentages and cash is real and we need to address, if it is to be expanded to meet the increased workload it will soon encounter, how will the appointment process work? Who will oversee the process? Can she outline the timelines we can expect when she anticipates the PSFA will be scaled up and how quickly it will be fit for purpose and thing resource? We have concerns over the independence of the body.

It is still subject to powers that go up to the Minister responsible in the Cabinet Office. Government departments are marking their own homework and we have no their own homework and we have no guarantee that the PSFA will be independent. It should be in the bill from the start and that down to the discretion of the -- not down to the discretion of the Minister. Will it be independent from the Cabinet Office? It unacceptable in our view that the process of recall those who want to appeal will be back to the Minister.

Recall processes should be independent and we want to emphasise that recall should be through an independent tribunal mechanism and not back to a politically appointed person, someone with vested interests. This relates to a wider point about the ultimate purpose of the authority. It is an important -- it has an important task to perform, and we support the intention of a six-year extension up to 12 years. Can she give a timeline as to when it is expected to conclude its work? I wonder how the government would react to a proposal of a Sunset clause to the authorities so there is no risk these powers are held indefinitely beyond the period they are reasonably required.

I want to refer to whistleblowing protections. As my noble friend has already made clear, this bill relates to situations where people could be asked to make difficult, stressful and worrying decisions. It is easy for us to talk about this in academic terms but whistleblowing is far from easy and we need to do all we can to support those who stick their next out to do the right thing. The government has made clear that they believe existing protections are enough, although a recent National Audit Office investigation into whistleblowing in the Civil Service has highlighted , showing it is even harder than it has been to call out wrongdoing.

The NHS have strengthened their whistleblowing safeguards and the issues are being addressed elsewhere in our state system. We believe that the same support needs to be given to civil servants, working in a sensitive area, covering Cabinet Office and DWP aspects. Let me turn to the section of the bill which relates to the department of work and pensions. We on these benches support measures to crack down on those people who abuse the welfare system, for some people in our society to steal from a system designed to support the most vulnerable is a despicable act and we need to stop those who do this as a matter of urgency.

I have no desire to upset Lord Davies, but I must say, the noble Baroness the Minister mentioned driving licences, what about passports? The noble Baroness looks after child maintenance, I looked after it under the guidance of Lady Coffey, we took away driving licences, we took away passports. How many do you think we did? Less than five because it was a deterrent. Think twice. I want to make myself available to the noble Baroness the Minister because I have a load of other ideas for deterrence and I'm telling you they will work.

The bill proposes increase to the DWP workload and I understand the detail the government has outlined, the DWP can expect to receive thousands of signals from banks flagging fraudulent activity, these will then be checked by human being. The government has rightly said that it will approach this with a deep attention to vulnerability. We must welcome this. This was raised by right reverend Prelate. Does this mean that DWP civil servants will be checking not only the movement of money into account but also whether the person in question is someone with a disability? Perhaps someone with reduced capacity or someone at risk of being coerced.

None of this detail is clear and the government has failed to publish an impact assessment showing the cost of this additional work. It is vital these vital considerations are taken into account. We need to distinguish between those committing fraud intentionally and those with reduced capacity and additional needs who may not realise that what they are doing is fraudulent. We need to consider wider circumstances, if the suspected fraudster is a woman trying to save money to escape an abusive relationship, we will be doing far more harm than good by stripping this money away.

How can the government ensure under the provisions in this bill that vulnerable people will be supported? If the government intends to proceed in the way I have outlined, we are talking about thousands of hours of additional work. Can enable the honourable lady -- the noble Lady the Minister say how it is going to be met, how much the demand will cost and if it will be worth the money saved in tackling fraud in this way? We should be paying close attention to this as we progress in committee.

I want to say something about the use of artificial intelligence to improve investigatory performance. This was raised by the right reverend Prelate and the point of technology by other noble Lords. We would support the Efficiency but should be subject to oversight. We are talking about personal, confidential and financial information. Can she assure the House that any use of eye would be subject to rigourous safeguards? Will she commit to coming before the House again to set out how these will work and how the government will guarantee security for the owners of the data? Many of the same questions remain over the role of banks.

The bill places a significant burden on banks, who it appears donate resources to the system out of a sense of moral duty. They forego considerable opportunity cost which will not be recovered. It may be right in principle but for financial institutions, the bottom line is always the determinant factor. Can the noble Lady the Minister update the House on how much these new responsibilities will cost banks? The final figure will ultimately depend on demand but can she tell us the cost per head? Does the government have an impact assessment prepared for banks, showing them how much this will cost them? If more work than anticipated images, what arrangements are made for paying this? I'm concerned that these proposals are being put before the House well talks with banks are ongoing.

The government have not come into this is prepared as I believe they should and we should know what settlement is before we start discussing this and the fact it is still the moving picture is deeply worrying when we have been asked to enshrine this in law. These are important questions and I hope the Minister can shed some light on them for the sake of business and taxpayer. We will want to test the government out at Committee stage on all of these aspects.

Arguably, the most fundamental provisions in the bill relates to enforcement. People need to know, if they commit fraud, they face a genuine and real risk of retribution. One of the issues we identified was that DWP can only access activity and one bank account. This point has already been raised. It is the one bank account that they pay benefits into. As soon as the bill is passed, fraudsters will realise all they need to do is open a new bank account, move the money over and they are saved.

Bank accounts could be set up in minutes. As highlighted by Baroness Coffey. The fraudster could circumnavigate the DWP and all of the measures in this bill on their phone in the space of a single tube journey. Completely safe in the knowledge that the DWP legally cannot pursue This brings me back to pilot schemes. Can the Minister please publish the results of these schemes, which I have a hunch might highlight some of these issues. Closing this loophole is the only way to make sure the bill works at all.

Another subject for debate in committee. Finally, a very serious matter, I say a plague on society, I want to turn to so-called sick influences. People who use social media sites to defraud -- to tell people how to defraud the system. This has to stop. People across the country are gaining substantial online followings, who consume their videos instructing them on how to defraud the benefit systems. They provide answers, highlight keywords and openly boast that their scripts can claim the maximum number of points in the welfare system.

We need to be clear this sort of behaviour is designed to circumnavigate the rightful checks that are in place, and therefore clearly a way of enabling fraud. The fraud act of 2006 and the serious act 2007 do provide a framework for tackling this, but we are concerned these bills are not sufficient to police this sort of behaviour adequately. Government has said they want this bill to modernise powers, and we believe this is an area where modernisation will likely need to take place.

We will therefore be paying again close attention to this bill at committee stage, and we will seek cast-iron assurances from the government. Recently want to ask what the government will do to tackle this threat. I want to ask the noble Lady the Minister how many influences have been detained under the regime, either the current framework is inadequate or the powers are not being used. In conclusion, I want to reiterate our intention to work with the government to ensure this bill is fit for purpose, I look forward to hearing the noble Lady's answers to the points I raised.

We believe the issues we have highlighted our fundamentally important to making this bill a success, we shall be pressing these in committee stage as pressing these in committee stage as needed. I can see why the noble Baroness Lady Fox came to the conclusion that this bill was not so good after all. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the Lords who have contributed to the debate so far, we look forward to engaging with peers as well as the Minister and her team as the bill progresses.

progresses.
15:19
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Well, let me start by thanking all noble Lords who have committed to today's thoughtful and not at all dull debate. Committee is going to be some fun indeed. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of Lady Speelman, I welcome her to go spreadsheet fan club. Keeping track of all the questions today, in absence of a spreadsheet I'm bound to miss some but I will do my best. I look forward to hearing more from her in future.

Perhaps we should start briefly with the challenge the bill is designed to address. As Lady Anderson made clear at the start, public thought is simply not acceptable. Fraud is not acceptable generally, but public-sector fraud is also not acceptable. Fraud doesn't become a victimless crime because it's directed at the state. Fraud will cheat the public purse and money that could be spent on public services. That could help this pub make this government give children the best start in life. Listening to the examples given by Lord Brooke and Lady Alexander, this is so shocking, the idea that dealing COVID when charities were out there, people were breaking their backs serving people desperately in need, others were lining their pockets.

It's a disgrace. It was moving to hear from Lady Alexander about what is happening when people are doing all they have had to do in the British Council to pay that back, and others don't want to pay back the money they should be paying back to the state. That cannot be right. I also think fraud in our Social Security system is damaging as well. In a different way. Whether it's undertaken by individuals or by organised criminals, I think Lady Kramer asked what the breakdown of that was.

I can tell her that in 2023/24 of the 7.3 billion last in fraud in Social Security, 6% was organised gangs and the rest was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from individuals. Is that the number of cases that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that the number of cases that were identified? Because there was enough evidence and people were arrested, or does she believe that arrested, or does she believe that is an estimate of the total amount of organised fraud in the system?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of organised fraud in the system? It's essentially the amount of fraud that was recognised. Clearly we don't have figures for the amount of fraud of any kind that has not of fraud of any kind that has not been identified or recognised, that was the figures of the amount we have on our books as organised fraud. The reality is, whether it's by organised criminals or by organised criminals or individuals this is not OK. It's not fair to taxpayers, to Social Security, it's not fair to the vast Security, it's not fair to the vast majority of people who only claim the benefits to which they are entitled.

When money is tight as it entitled. When money is tight as it is now, in my job I want every any available to Social Security to go available to Social Security to go to people who need it most. This government is determined to tackle the issue head-on with a bill that the issue head-on with a bill that will provide the right tools to protect public money, fight modern fraud, coupled with the right safeguards. This bill is tough on those who commit fraud on social services or the welfare state, it gives reassurance to taxpayers.

One of the side effects is it will actually be helpful to DWP claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping to spot errors earlier and avoid getting into lots of debt. I thought the point made by lady Speelman about reciprocity was Speelman about reciprocity was there,, we need that underpinning, to support people in the future, we do need to get this right. We don't need to demonise people to do that, we just need to make clear people should get what they are entitled to and if they aren't we should address it.

We believe this bill strikes the right balance, thing the government new powers proportionate to the problem we are tackling while ensuring those powers are wrapped around with effective safeguards and protections to give protections to and the country. It's possible not everybody agrees with us, at least not yet. We have some way to go. I have every confidence that once I fully explained this there will be unanimity across the house. Or near unanimity at least, being a realist. Having listened to the debate it seems to me there are a number of challenges.

Can I offer a couple of truisms. Firstly, there is no silver bullet to fraud. If there was one single thing to do, previous governments would have done it. Tackling fraud is an accretion of serious small decisions that add up to make a difference, this bill does what it does, it doesn't do other things. It doesn't tackle bank robbers or tax evasion, it does what it does. It's a contribution to that about think and appropriate one. The best is not the enemy of the good.

What's in front of us is action the government will take that has not been done before, I commend it to the house. The challenges come in three broad categories. Either that we are not going far enough, or that we are going to far, or that there are some challenges in the way we are doing this. Look at each of them in turn. Let me start with the challenges that we are not going far enough, which have come from a number of lords. I have to say, the Lady Barran has and I have a lot of respect for each other, but it's a little ironic given the last government was in for 14 years they had all that time to take action, what did we get? We got one predecessor of one of these measures, which was put in at the fag end of the last government, dropped in to the other place after committee stage with none of the information the noble Baroness is demanding from me, not even a requirement to produce a code of practice let alone an actionable code of practice.At the safeguards, none of the protections, none.

I fully respect now she is in opposition it's their job to demand these things of the government, she does a fine job of doing that. She also won't mind if I occasionally throw back at her what her government failed to do, in this area I think we are doing rather better. Let's move on. It's worth saying this government is actually doing something. We committed to the biggest ever savings package on fraud, error and get at the Spring Budget, DWP fraud and error are estimated to reach £9.3 billion of savings by 2030, part of which by this bill.

This bill is not all we are doing but it's an important thing we are doing. I was asked about cost, in the end the costs of DWP working through these measures will be dependent on the munificence of the spending review like the Treasury at the spending review. It sets out our estimate, which shows sets out our estimate, which shows around four times the of the pound that spent will come back on fraud measures by 2030. I was asked about influences not doing enough.

It's the view of our department we have the powers to deal with these crimes at the moment and we think what Bill will do is help the PS FA do that at the same time. If she has ideas about other ways to do that I look forward to hearing that along without ideas about tackling fraud which I have no doubt committee stage will give us an opportunity to discuss. Lady Kramer, and I think Lady Stedman-Scott, raised the problem of whistleblowing. We agree, we want people to pass on information about fraudsters, we are open to looking at the best way to do that.

We are working with partners to make it simple and easy. In the case of DWP benefit fraud can be reported by the public online, by phone or by post. And trust me, it is. Also, DWP staff have clear channels to report this. The PS FA will also look into the possibility of being listed by the Department of business and trade as a body with which individuals can raise concerns around public-sector fraud. That will help on that side. While we are on the PS FA, there were concerns raised by Lady Finn and Lord Garnier and others about whether on not what the PS FA is doing is enough, about the scale.

In terms of what it does, the PS FA enforcement unit is relatively new. Lady Finn was a little bit harsh on test and learn, when the enforcement unit is as new as it is, and only with the passage of this bill will get the powers to do any of these things, surely testing and learning is the right thing to do. If it can demonstrate clearly results come from that possibility for scaling will be significant. I'm not making assumptions about the Treasury I promise.

Lord Garnier asked about the government auditing the work of the PS FA, and if the powers of the bill will add anything. PS FA publish annual reports audited by publish annual reports audited by the audit agency. They can't make the current desired progress because it doesn't have the powers it needs, this will -- this is what the bill will provide. Let's now going to go going to far case. A number of noble Lords argued, Lord Fox, Lord Garnier, Lord Vaux, who are concerned about the possible infringements on rights of privacy or other aspects of the reach of this bill.

Lord Vaux, I'm grateful for him acknowledging the improvements in this bill, I raised some resignations when the last government raised the measure, because I felt the powers were simply not proportionate and I went enough safeguards around them. Lord Davies, the fact that we provide safeguards does not mean powers are wrong. That's what safeguards are for, there are safeguards in all aspects of life and I will come back to back. It means we want to be transparent and show the powers of the state are used appropriately, that's what they are for.

For example, the noble Lord explained the limitations, we were now limiting the benefits in scope, about what information can be requested and for what purpose, and how the PS FA and WP will use it. And the pill will introduce significant requirements. I'm confident it is compliant with the governance duties under the ECHR, and the government's detailed analysis on compatibility is set out in the ECHR memorandum. I need to take on a couple of noble Lords who have been suggesting this is a broad expedition in trolling.

It's been described as DWP going out there trying to have access to everybody's bank accounts, suspicious, snooping. I think that's a simple misunderstanding about the nature of the powers. Many try and explain why. DWP will not be given access to people's bank accounts because of this. The measure is about banks being asked examine their own data, data they already have, data they can already look at. They've been asked to provide DWP with the minimum amount of information necessary to highlight whether there is a possibility someone may not be meeting a specific eligibility rule for a specific benefit.

At that point, when the information is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shared with the DWP, no one is suspected of having done anything wrong. There is a presumption of innocence still there. I want to clarify that. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to clarify that. I think it is clear the DWP does not want to see that data, but it tells the banks to trawl for the data. And banks to trawl for the data. And saying they already have the data, they are not trawling for a they are not trawling for a government mandated outcome before you told them to do it. Before the you told them to do it. Before the DWP told them to do it. So as you are about to say, and I stressed are about to say, and I stressed this before, it is true there is no suspicion on anyone.

The only reason the bank is doing is because they the bank is doing is because they are in receipt of a particular benefit, and the banks therefore have two go and check if they are in receipt of that benefit because they don't necessarily know that, going don't necessarily know that, going through their data based on eligibility criteria government will give them. No one is saying the government is spying, but the banks spying, if the banks have been asked to spy, is just a slogan.

We to spy, is just a slogan. We understand it, we don't think you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have heard accounts of people being told to say disabled people being told to say disabled people are worried that the DWP know they are going to a cafe and so they do not need the money et cetera. So it not need the money et cetera. So it is important that the DWP does not is important that the DWP does not have access through this. DWP will tell the banks to look specifically at the bank accounts into which those benefits are paid, they will tell them specifically the criteria which they are looking for and all they are being asked to sell back is enough to identify accounts which may on the face of it be in breach, may on the face of it be in breach, that information is then used with other information the DWP holds and other information the DWP holds and it will be examined by human beings who will make a decision whether to investigate.

There could be a number of outcomes, the outcome could be that the person may have had more money in their account than the money in their account than the benefit allows, but there could be a good reason. The person may have made a genuine error, or there may be evidence of fraud and it may be investigation. We believe it is important with the safeguards wrapped around. They are arguing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the same thing, different understandings of what is going on at the same time. She referred to an acceptable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She referred to an acceptable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She referred to an acceptable reason. Who is ultimately deciding what constitutes acceptability?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what constitutes acceptability? These might be things to explore at committee got there there are certain compensation payments that are excluded from capital limits, it are excluded from capital limits, it may be someone has received compensation payments, there is guidance of circumstances people may have money in their accounts that is have money in their accounts that is not there. Before any case is pursued, if anyone looks at a fraud case, there is a requirement of the case, there is a requirement of the fraud investigator to look at all information and chase down any information and chase down any avenues there.

They will do that and make an appropriate decision. The initial use of the power is focused on three benefits, Universal Credit, employer support and Universal Credit. That's where the highest levels of fraud are at the moment. Carer's Allowance was not on that list. The two types of fraud and error we are targeting, breaches of capital and living abroad rules, are significant drivers. In Universal Credit nearly £1 billion was overpaid last year. Once rolled out, that measure will save £500 million a year.

State Pension is out of scope. That is sensible given the overpayments is just not .1 percent. We do not have plans to add any other benefits, we cannot rule them out because fraud may change in the future and different benefits may be subject to different levels of fraud. Noble Lords raised issues about the use of AI and decision- making. We are not introducing new use of automated decision-making as a result of the bill. The DWP and PSF they will look at all information before deciding our next steps.

In fraud and error, decisions that affect benefit entitlement will be taken by a DWP colleague and any signals of potential fraud and error will be looked at comprehensively. Given the arguments by those who think we are not going far enough and those who think we are not going to far, I think we are Goldilocks in this. I think we have landed in the right place because of the safeguards the bill includes to ensure measures are effective and proportionate. They provide protection but also accountability and transparency.

I will not go back over the different kinds of oversight still there, the appointment process for the independent people that will oversee the measures will be carried out under the guidance of the commissioner for Public appointments and will abide by the code on public appointments throughout. I'm grateful of Lady Alexander's compliments, I would suggest she apply herself but I do not think she would meet the... The investigations and the opportunity to appeal to the and the opportunity to appeal to the tribunal.

New routes for representational review followed by appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, and the courts decision to the disqualification order can be appealed in a court of law. The point about driving licences, I take the point of why driving licences and white not membership of a political party? Not being able to join a political party may not have the same deterrent effect. Not for us, we are not typical. Touch and go. I want to assure, this is a measure that has been used for a long time by their Child Maintenance Service.

It's effectiveness is that it almost never is needed to be used. This is about debt recovery, people who are not on benefits and not in employment with PAYE. If you are on benefits DWP can already deduct it from benefits, or your wages. If you own money or are privately wealth yourself and -- or are self-employed, and you know DWP money, that DWP cannot go after that in the same way. The bill uses deduction measures to bring this to the table.

The measures are only there if people refuse to engage and simply want to come along and do what they ought to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Could she confirm that foreign bank accounts will not be covered by any of the measures in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill? Think we should come back to the detail of how bank accounts are dealt with with the committee. I am dealt with with the committee. I am supposed to stop soon. Burdens on business, a lot of people asked business, a lot of people asked whether banks want to engage or not. We have been engaging very much with We have been engaging very much with the banks. The meeting has been held with DWP and Cabinet Office with DWP and Cabinet Office ministers that I have attended with senior representatives of the finance industry.

We are going to finance industry. We are going to continue to work closely with the design and implementation of the measures. We set out the expected measures. We set out the expected cost to banks where possible. The EVA will follow. Depending on how it is designed and how it will work. I have to get better at organising. Potential conflict with financial employment duties, the government is working closely with UK Finance and FCA to make sure the measures align and are appropriate with wider finance duties.

We will make sure that works appropriately. I think I'm running out of time. The word on carers, I agree with noble Lords he mentioned the important contribution of carers. This government is behind carers, we introduced the largest ever increase in earnings limit of the Carer's Allowance. We introduced an independent review earnings - related caring allowance. We are looking forward to learning from looking forward to learning from that. The word on safeguarding, the noble Lord mentioned the DWP Select Committee put a report out which we will look at carefully and to close account of recommendations.

Long before that happened, when we put the Green Paper out on Pathways to work, the Secretary of State is keen to make sure the DWP get safeguarding right. They committed to a new DWP wide safeguarding approach. The departure from the way things are done now. I'm going to work with stakeholders to make sure we get that right. DWP works all the time, looking carefully at how we support vulnerable people. Decisions are taken individually, they are taking I love that, occasionally mistakes will be made but we want to ensure we understand the circumstances people are in and support them whenever they need help and find the best way through for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

each individual. Does my noble friend have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my noble friend have a response to the point I raised on behalf of Baroness Lister about the behalf of Baroness Lister about the position of people who reasonably assume that the money received in assume that the money received in I am afraid time has run out. To be clear, we need to not align together clear, we need to not align together fraud and error. If information is fraud and error. If information is found, this is just a data pool, if data comes from the banks to DWP it will be used with the data to make will be used with the data to make an individual assessment of someone's position and appropriate decisions will be made at that point decisions will be made at that point about how to deal with what may be an overpayment, a genuine mistake, it may be an act of fraud on there it may be an act of fraud on there may be no problem at all.

Cases will be looked at individually. The bill delivers on the manifesto commitment, expected to save 1.5 billion over the next five years as billion over the next five years as To tackle fraud, and will be the biggest upgrade to the counter fraud measures in over 16 years. We believe it is proportionate and demonstrates we will take action against those who willingly defraud Public Services, providing the right tools to deter criminal activity. I'm working -- looking forward to working with so many noble Lords across the House, it says here, through the passage of this bill.

I look forward to seeing many in committee and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the other motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the other motion standing in my name. I beg to move the question. The question is this bill the now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this bill the now read a second time. As many as are read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, Say content. of that opinion, Say content. Opinion -- Of the contrary, "Not content." As many as are of that content." As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. I suggest we take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee Committee on Committee on the Committee on the Renters' Committee on the Renters' Rights

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. I beg to move the House resolve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House resolve itself into committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House again resolve itself into committee upon the bill. As many as are of that the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The
15:45
15:46
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
After clause 136, Amendment 275

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Baroness Coffey. I am continuing the discussion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am continuing the discussion that I brought to the house in I think amendment 182 possibly, at the think amendment 182 possibly, at the time I refer to the fact that there were other amendments that were relevant to that debate, because relevant to that debate, because they were not before your Lordships I could not speak to them. This is because for whatever reason there was a bit of a dispute about whether was a bit of a dispute about whether this amendment was in scope or not.

This comes back to the issue about This comes back to the issue about people in social housing, and whether or not they have the right whether or not they have the right to buy the right to acquire, which we discussed at length on Monday in an earlier day of committee. I an earlier day of committee. I recall at the time one of your Lordships expressed all this damning doubt about all this. The whole point about this amendment was to point about this amendment was to address the point of what is rural.

One of the things that your One of the things that your Lordships House may not be aware of is that when all these powers were arranged is with the right to acquire in 1997 whole bunch of Statutory Instruments were put into place naming individual parishes and parish areas. So county by county, right across the country, a whole lists were put in place. Curiously, some of the places not included are perfectly rural and were below that so-called 3,000 threshold, which is used generally by government in order to consider the difference between what is rural and what is not.

That's why in this particular amendment what has happened over the years is that places have grown, some of these villages have become deliberately areas of growth. I mentioned a couple, I happen to know parts of Suffolk and Hampshire reasonably well having lived there for many years. There are places near Alton in Hampshire, near Winchester, and I was particularly inspired by a story I told the house about discussions with residents of Rendlesham in Suffolk, but there are more. Instead of trying to get some sort of hybrid, I thought it would be worthwhile to not deprive people of the fact that if they lived in a different place where the population was over 3,000 they wouldn't have this arbitrary today, then they would be able to have that if we did it by threshold of what is considered rural rather than what is named or not.

To that end, it was supposed to be a combined debate, I still feel it is somewhat unfair that there are many people who cannot acquire their house from social housing, particularly in the countryside. And I still wish to, I think the issue still needs addressing. This is a mechanistic way of how to make sure rural social housing stays, if it is still a genuinely rural area then the threshold applies. But if it is no longer realistically a rural area then people should be able to acquire them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 136 insert the new clause as printed in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the marshalled list. The amendment tabled by Baroness Coffey raises an important and
15:50
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Coffey raises an important and timely issue. The need to revisit the designation of rural areas for the purposes of right to buy. The proposal is clear, it would require the Secretary of State within six months of the act passing to revoke rural area designations for parishes where the population now exceeds 3,000 people. Based on the 2021 Census. The rationale is that some areas, as we have heard, once a small village have grown significantly and no longer meet the criteria originally used to justify rural protections under the scheme.

We recognise the logic behind this approach, designations made years ago may no longer reflect the current character of certain parishes. And it is only right we refuse such clarifications to make sure they are based on up-to-date information. However, while we understand the intentions behind the amendment we believe a more considered and locally informed approach is needed. First and foremost, this should be done in consultation with local authorities who are best placed to assess not just the population figures but the broader housing context within their communities.

A numerical threshold alone does not tell us whether a parish still functions as a rural settlement, nor whether it has the capacity to replace any lost social housing. Indeed, we would argue that the conversation should not be based solely on population size but also the number of homes in a settlement, specifically the number of affordable or social homes available, and the prospects for building more. In many villages, even those with over 3,000 residents, the opportunity to build new homes let alone new affordable ones is extremely limited.

Planning constraints, infrastructure challenges and community sensitivity all contribute to a situation where once a home is sold underwrite to buy it is unlikely to be replaced. That is why the protection of the existing social housing stock is so vital in these areas. Without it we risk hollowing out rural communities, pricing out local families, draining the workforce and diminishing village life. While we support the principle of ensuring that designations are kept up-to- date, we believe any such change must be grounded in a wider understanding of rural housing dynamics.

This means not just reviewing the census data, but supporting councils to update and verify housing data and allowing for flexibility where a parish may meet the population threshold but still faces acute rural housing pressures. This is not simply a technical matter of numbers, it goes to the heart of how we preserve the character and the sustainability of rural communities. Let us ensure that any change to rural designation is made with care, with consultation, and with awareness of its consequences.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I make my comments on the noble Baroness's amendments, I hope the House will indulge me for a few the House will indulge me for a few brief moments as we start our final committee stage on the Renters' committee stage on the Renters' Rights Bill. Firstly can I say how noticeable it has been that members across the house while we may have debated and occasionally had our differences on the detail of the bill, we have had a great deal of consensus about the need to improve consensus about the need to improve the renting landscape for tenants and the vast majority of good landlords.

Those landlords who choose to exploit their tenants and game the system not only make their tenants life a misery, they also tenants life a misery, they also undercut and damage the reputation of others. It is time we ticked the steps in this bill -- took the steps steps in this bill -- took the steps in this bill to put that right. Bill has shown the best of this House, noble Lords providing their noble Lords providing their expertise, knowledge and wisdom and thoughtful reflection to improve the legislation before us.

And most grateful for the engagement before grateful for the engagement before and during the passage of the bill. It had some unusual and difficult hours of sitting on this bill, hours of sitting on this bill, largely because of other business in the House, in no way because of unnecessary or lengthy contributions to our deliberations. I would like to thank all noble Lords for their patience and good humour during late sittings. I am grateful to Lady Scott, Lord Jamieson, Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Grender, and The Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Bishop of Manchester.To mention a good deal of passion and enthusiasm from noble friends on my own ventures.

I would like to thank the bill team, my private office and the doorkeeper is of the house including the car -- the parks and catering staff, who stayed sometimes into the early hours to make sure we are safe and looked after. And of course the Hansard team doing brilliant work. Can I thank the usual challenges who have been negotiating to make sure we complete this committee stage in good time. Last but by no means least, I thank my wit Lord Wilson, who is not here today but sits beside me, editing my speeches, he didn't get his hands on this one and I'm very grateful to him.

There are millions of renters and landlords out there who are awaiting the passage of this bill to ensure the renting minefield is fairer, safer and more secure. As we move forward to report stage in early June I look forward to continuing to engage and work with your Lordships to make sure this is the best bill it can be. In the meantime, thank you for making my first time taking a bill through government such a collaborative and positive experience. I would like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Coffey for the noble Baroness Lady Coffey for amendment 275 the, on the designation of rural areas.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to revoke the designation of any parish with over 3,000 inhabitants for the purposes of right to buy. This amendment would not have any impact on the right to acquire housing association property in rural areas. I have to say this amendment is a bit of a stretch for the scope of this bill, however it's important I should respond to the noble Lady's responsible -- concerns. On the Housing Act 1985 the Secretary of State has power to designate certain areas as rural, particularly areas with population under 3,000.

A landlord in a rural area may impose restrictions on the buyer of a right to buy property to prevent it being sold again without the former landlords consent, other than to a local person or back to the landlord. Lady Coffey's amendment would remove the ability of landlords to include resale restrictions on properties sold underwrite to buy in those designated rural areas where the population was about 3,000, which currently help preserve homes for local people in perpetuity. Lady Scott is quite right to say if we were going to make any changes to this it would have to be done very carefully, and definitely in consultation both with local people and with local authorities.

These exemptions are in place to help maintain affordable housing in communities where replacing them can be unfeasible due to high build costs, planning limitations and land availability. We have heard much about that during the discussions on this bill and other bills, and the government does not intend to remove these protections. On this basis I would ask the noble Baroness Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coffey to withdraw her amendment. I have heard both frontbenches,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have heard both frontbenches, and clearly there is no appetite for this. I'm just very conscious are this. I'm just very conscious are some areas that over 25 years have grown substantially. There is a substantial amount of new housing going in, including new social housing. But because of the housing. But because of the designations set in stone in 1997, some of the expected opportunities people have to participate in owning a home which they might not be able
15:58
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
a home which they might not be able to afford initially but may do in time is something that I had hoped would be considered a little further. But I understand both where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are coming from, and I beg leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 270 5C, Baroness Coffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 270 5C, Baroness Coffey. Arise to move to 75C, the reason

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to move to 75C, the reason for this is I look carefully at some of the previous debates that had happened and I felt that the happened and I felt that the amendments, the broader issue of trying to help people living in trying to help people living in their home to stay in their home, which even though they may have which even though they may have pretty long tenancies, I myself was pretty long tenancies, I myself was a tenant in this city for 11 years until one landlord, I did actually suffer a section 21 eviction but suffer a section 21 eviction but there we go.

Nevertheless, I think there were some gaps in the there were some gaps in the suggestions put forward. In particular I'm thinking the amendments that would have required a local authority assessment to have been undertaken in advance of any installation of equipment. Another amendment that was discussed would have capped the cost allowed to an unknown figure, and also did not extend to social housing. I'm very conscious there's a lot of legislation, and one part of this bill is to try and bring new standards into the private rented sector that social housing has, but I'm learning during this process quite how many things do not apply to social housing.

That we expect in the private rented sector. This is a good example. So one of the things I wanted to be able to do, I'm conscious there are many people it would be far easier to help them stay in their homes, one of the key elements actually of the health and care strategies that have been put out by a variety of governments over many years, and this for me instead of having to go through quite an awkward process if a tenant wanted to make changes to their home that they were paying for in regards to what is a protected characteristic then they should be able to do so without having to go through all sorts of hoops to do so.

So my intention was to just try and make it a lot easier for people to continue to enjoy their life in the home or the place they call home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert new clause is printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I rise to speak in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend. I apologise to noble
16:01
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
noble friend. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the bill. I want to thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment for a number of reasons. As someone as a result of injury has had to rely on a wheelchair much more than usual. I recognise disability and the need to use mobility aid such as a wheelchair does not change because one happens to be a tenant. I like this amendment because it brings me the opportunity to bring to the houses attention a real life example which underlines its importance.

I should declare an interest that it concerns a person I know who is an eminent solicitor with an international law firm and who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome, for those not familiar with this condition, common symptoms include vision problems, like nearsightedness, retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems like hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual's case, it is extremely painful, debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months.

Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job. However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination. She is encountering. From House management and the right to manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented flat, including the courtyard garden she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to restore mobility aids.

Her request is undoubtedly reasonable. But the irony is that she is not actually asking for an installation, all she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in the courtyard garden which is part of the dwelling. There are two aids in which she depends for her ability to live independently and her ability to get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated increased use of a wheelchair and increased vision impairment because of her condition has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and faerie mobility aid, I refer to her adorable canine companion, her adorable canine companion, without which she would be immobile and could not function without her guide dog.

The reason why this amendment is so important to this individual and to other disabled people in her situation, perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend when she tabled the amendment, is because, despite my honourable friend being a lawyer, despite her having been engaging with House and art tan in writing to with House and art tan in writing to explain her rights to her garden for her dog and wheelchair, all of her appeals for help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain.

I have a copy of her email correspondence with House and their directors here in the chamber. It is a damning indictment to have rights enshrined in disability discrimination and policy legislation which your Lordship House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass are being reduced. What a sad reflection on society that this could have happened in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary year of the disability discrimination act. It is heartbreaking in the case of this individual, quite literally.

Her condition is isolated, -- isolating, this is known, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die. There is indifference added to that sense of isolation. What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive to facilitate speedy resolution of the situation. To ensure the RTM situation. To ensure the RTM director acts within her rights, that it is on a permanent and unrestricted basis to a courtyard garden to use her mobility aids, which happens to be next to my friends apartment.

This is vital for the welfare of her ageing service dog mobility aid and the individual herself. She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to research her rights. In a way that is being totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, the individual has also been told that if you flower parts that contain plants and provide her with that very few flashes of colour she can just about discern must be removed.

In closing, I asked the noble Baroness the Minister if she would meet with me so we can explore how we might persuade the company to respect this individual's rights with regard to mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment. Can directors of amendment. Can directors of companies be struck off for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how to make sure they are. Perhaps the appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention.

I cannot imagine clients would be impressed. I look forward to the response and I look forward to the response and share my deep gratitude to my noble friend for sharing such an important amendment. amendment.
16:10
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank lady coffee for bringing this amendment, and also thanks to Lord Shinkwin, he brings knowledge and also personal experience to any debate, particularly to this debate today. We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group and we are in support of steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need with the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes.

I'm grateful to my noble friend for bringing this important amendment today. Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests from tenants who need mobility aids to have these installed. It is a limited amendment but only applies when a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of those aids themselves. We think this is an excellent challenge to the government and hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will seriously consider this proposal very carefully and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants.

Perhaps this is something we could revisit at report stage. We also wish to work constructively with Baroness Coffey on how we might consider broader plans to ensure the removal Is deliverable, affordable and possible in practice. This is a vital area, one that demands serious attention from the government and the onus is on all of us across the House to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real world challenges faced by landlords and by tenants alike when it comes to adapted homes.

I would be interested, and I think we do need to look further at, under my noble friend's amendment, who would be responsible for example for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is more work to do but I am sure we can all do it before report. I look forward to working with other parties to see if we can find a really sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area really supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment which seeks to prevent landlords all other relevant person landlords all other relevant person in relation to a tenancy from unreasonably refusing a tenant request to install mobility aid in their home. We did debate similar
16:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
their home. We did debate similar amendments in relation to home disability adaptations in detail last week. I agree absolutely that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters from getting the home adaptations they need and so powerfully described by Lord Shinkwin, I will write to him about In cases like you raised. The equality rights 2010 already provides protections to disabled tenants, whether in social rented or private rented housing. Including providing a procedure under which they can request permission in writing from their landlord to make adaptations, including additions to or alterations in the fittings and fixtures of the home such as mobility aids.

Landlords cannot reasonably refuse such request, creating any specific obligation in relation to mobility aids would increase the complexity of the system and making it more difficult for tenants to navigate. We want to avoid beating a two tier system where people with impaired mobility have different rights to other people with other disabilities or impairments. I want to thank Baroness for bringing forward this today because it gives me the opportunity to update noble Lords on, there was a lot of discussion about this in the other place during the passage of the bill.

There have been some further commitments. These were set out in a recent letter from the Minister of State housing and planning, the MPs who tabled amendments in the other place. The letter stated the government would take the following actions to address known barriers to disabled tenants accessing the adaptations they require. I will update members As highlighted by research from the ECHR and the landlords Association challenged the that -- the major challenge to the system is a lack of knowledge among tenants and agents, this requires a written statement of terms for new tenants.

It's our intention subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation to mandate this statement sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010. Not to unreasonably refuse adaptation requests from tenants for disabilities. This will give obligations when they enter a tenancy. In addition my department will introduce a program to further raise awareness on landlords, tenants and agents of rights and obligations in respect of home disability adaptations under the Equality Act 2010. We will work Equality Act 2010.

We will work closely with the sector including organisations representing disabled people to inform our approach to building greater awareness among these groups. We will explore enhancing guidance for tenants and landlords, for example to help them understand what constitutes reasonable in relation to adaptation requests. My department will engage with key organisations in the sector, including those that already have a role advising landlords and tenants on issues relating to home adaptations. We will seek to work with such organisations to produce and distribute clear guidance, or where required to update and strengthen existing guidance.

This will help all parties to effectively navigate the current system. We believe these steps will make a real difference to clarifying the rights of disabled tenants and ensuring more requests for adaptations are both made and agreed to. I take the noble Lady Scots point about the removal of adaptations, we didn't removal of adaptations, we didn't discuss this the other day but I think that would be included in the guidance I have just mentioned. Given the existing protections that apply to disabled renters and the further action we are already further action we are already planning to take, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:23
None Portrait Amendment 278 Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-

to not allow section 21 to be kicked into the long grass, as it has been into the long grass, as it has been over the last six years. Everybody, Michael Gove, everybody in the last government who I spoke to said yes, government who I spoke to said yes, yes, we ought to do something about it. And I am very concerned that it. And I am very concerned that what will happen is that if we say section 21 needs to go through some section 21 needs to go through some more debates and wait for the legal more debates and wait for the legal process, then it will happen that even more people will end up being even more people will end up being thrown out of their homes.

But I would also like to raise another question, which I find very question, which I find very frightening. I am the product of a slum house, a slum landlord. When I slum house, a slum landlord. When I slum house, a slum landlord. When I was born in 1946, when in 1951 we didn't pay the rent we were thrown out on the streets. All of our goods out on the streets. All of our goods were put out there. This really upsets people in the Labour government at the time, but they didn't do an awful lot about it.

The Conservatives came in and they didn't do an awful lot about it. The fact that a family could be laid out on the streets without the law becoming in anyway at fault. What happened was the Conservatives when they came in had a rent act, I think it was 1955, and what they did was they changed it. And then in 1965 Labour came in and changed it again. So what you had, you could look at it in a way that you are looking for the goodies and baddies.

The goodies, when you are a Conservative administration the goodies are the landlords. And baddies are the tenants. Then when you come onto the Labour Party, the Labour government, then the landlords are the baddies and the tenants the goodies. I have watched this, I have been involved in this process for decade after decade after decade. And from my own personal experience, I feel that we need to arrive at the situation which we are not going to arrive at unless we really do rethink how we deal with tenancies, how we deal with landlords, and how we deal with tenants.

I think the important thing to me is that we are going to have to stop this coming and going, this balancing, this seeking of who is the wrong and who is the right. And unless both sides of the argument get together, which is where I want the work to be done, where landlords and tenants are actually advantaged by the stability that comes, and is not engined by the fact that it depends on which government is in as to who is the goodies and who is the baddies.

This has been a major problem for me over many years. In 1965, when the Labour government under Harold Wilson, brought in the rent act it meant in fact that you had this peculiar situation where all the support went to the tenant. And what happened was hundreds of thousands of people who were landlords, who had property, it was removed and there was an enormous pressure put on social housing. So social housing, the local authorities had to keep raising the bar.

So you got to a situation where if you were going to get a council flat, not like my brothers who were on the list in Fulham and Hammersmith in 1965, they were number 101 and I think 105, and they had been scratched because of the pressure on social housing which was so enormous that they kept raising the bar. It ended up largely with people who were incredibly troubled, not ordinary working class people, incredibly troubled. Often single mothers with a number of children.

You have this development of almost the creation of ghettos of people, living in social housing. Rather than the social mix of the social housing I moved into when I was at the age of 10. So what worries me, and I use this opportunity to say it, I want to get rid of section 21 because I think section 21 legalises insecurity. But overall I also want us to be looking carefully at how we can begin a process of balance and equilibrium between tenant and landlord.

Because they both need each other. How many tenants are paying for people to buy houses? How many tenants are helping landlords put money aside for their pension? How many tenants are putting the children into university because it's one of the few places where you can get prosperity? Unless we get to a situation where we get the equilibrium then over the next 20 or 30 years as politics changes and governments change you are going to have this kind of world with one being the bully and one being the being the bully and one being the being the bully and one being the
16:29
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause page 162, line 36, leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsections one and two and insert the words on the marshalled list. Could I just say I think there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I just say I think there is a point here which I hope the Minister will listen to carefully, which is the speed with which legislation is actually put into legislation is actually put into operation. And I only want to make this point because it's been true this point because it's been true over a whole range of issues. It's true on housing, new housebuilding. You change the building regulations, You change the building regulations, it's five years before they actually come into operation because of the come into operation because of the way in which we deal with our legislation.

If you take the disgraceful situation of successive governments, both parties on governments, both parties on balance, we pass the change, so that dalits could claim compensation for dalits could claim compensation for the way in which they were treated because of their cast, we changed because of their cast, we changed the law in this house. It still hasn't come into operation because it's been put off and put off, it's been put off and put off, because of the way the legislation works. So I just say to the noble Lady, I hope she will recognise that what has been so ably introduced is what has been so ably introduced is in fact in a real sense it is two things, first air entirely agree that we need a proper balance and a way forward.

Tenants need landlords and landlords need tenants, that is obvious. I hope she will also take on board this fundamental issue about how quickly changes in legislation goes through, and how often the situation is left so that you can have continuing delays. Not just in this bill, and she is not responsible for other bills, but I hope she will take back a genuine concern that many others have about the length of time it takes the decisions that we make actually to affect ordinary people, which is affect ordinary people, which is affect ordinary people, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to contribute briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to contribute briefly to this debate on the amendment. I to this debate on the amendment. I defer to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord and his battle to raise the issue of homelessness and raise the issue of homelessness and those less fortunate people who do not have access to housing. Sometimes you come upon an amendment where you have to make a decision between your heart and your head and between your heart and your head and your heart is taken with the sincerity of the noble Lord's argument about the need to be fair,
16:32
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
argument about the need to be fair, principally to tenants and also landlords in the way you put legislation together. I absolutely take that view. One of the reasons I do not support the amendment is the government, rightly or wrongly, I believe that section 21 will have unintended consequences, reduce the amount of rental stock and mean people with -- own capital will sell that capital to others who have capital, landlords. And will not put the property back on the market for young working families and others as well back on the market.

He will know that rent controls rarely work, whether it is Barcelona, New York, Scotland or other places in the world. That is the head part. The heart part I absolutely agree with what he is saying. The government has reached this juncture, this bill is going to happen, there is a consensus whether I like it or not. Given we have some enduring concerns about court capacity and the ability of the court system to deal with any legislation which might arise from the whole bill, which will be coming out in the not-too-distant future, but on that basis I feel his amendment, whilst extremely well- meaning and very sincere, and I have great admiration, I do not think it will help deliver what we want which is fairness and equity for tenants and landlords.

It is on that basis I would say I do not support the amendment and I suspect the government would take a similar view, but I respect what he has done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in raising the issue over many years. My amendment has not been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment has not been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment has not been Amendments. I was surprised to be asked again to declare my interest because I have done so on several
16:34
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
because I have done so on several occasions already. My interests are disclosed in the register. I therefore move on to a responsible role, moving the last group of amendments into committee. There have been a number of amendments, known more so than from the Minister who has worked extremely hard and committee stages. The noble Lord gave a spirited speech, he was not here last night to make the spirited speech that he has given the spirited speech today.

I do not agree with his simplistic way of describing the attitude of the describing the attitude of the Conservative party, the policies based on bad tenants, nor do I agree based on bad tenants, nor do I agree that my party run the policies on bad landlords. I know this not just from debates in the House but discussions with the Minister, there has been an effort by my party to produce a bill which is firm and balanced and I believe in part, I am looking at the noble Lady on the other side of the House, I believe we have a large D, or the Minister has largely achieved that.

We heard the noble Lord his reasons for different commencement dates under the bill. All of my amendments that go to clause 145 of the bill, I have four amendments, 281, 287, 288 and 289, they are all designed to give more time for the commencement of specified parts of the bill. Particularly perhaps I could draw attention to 288, where the exercise is to give more times, different times for new tenancies and it is suggested that should be increased to six months and for existing tenancies it is suggested it should be 12 months.

What I think, this is where the problem is being presented to me by estate agents, I think we should all understand how impacting this bill is. If you look at clause 1 of the bill, it applies to all tenancies, existing tenancies, new tenancies and insofar as it applies to existing tenancies, applying to a great number of tenancies that are fixed term tenancies and many of those are short hold fixed term tenancies. That is what my wife and I used with the choice of a 12 month I used with the choice of a 12 month fixed term tenancies.

The estate agents have now got a very different role. Concerning new tenancies, that is OK. It will be set up as a periodic tenancy. But the existing tenancies produces different work for the estate agent. I know under the old system or their present system of short hold tenancy, the agent contacts both the tenant and the landlord about three months before the expiration of the tenancy and checks whether the tenant wants to go for another period of tenancy and whether the landlord is agreeable to that.

He also checks the position of the amount of rent. I do not know and I think many estate agents do not know, what will be the new requirement. Is it for the estate agent to contact the tenant and say how much longer you want? It is a periodic tenancy, there is no end date to it. Would it be proper for the estate agent to engage the tenancy on the amount of rent? These are difficult decisions that have got to be made.

It seems to be, that is why I am asking the noble friend the Minister to give more time, in this modern age, these things have to be set up with software and the like. All that is being asked of me and all I am now asking of you and the Minister is can we have more time so all the right procedures are set up and it does not end up to be a scrambled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

egg? I rise briefly to offer a few remarks on this group concerning
16:40
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
remarks on this group concerning commencement. I particularly want to thank noble Lords for ensuring this debate took place. And Lord de bin for his wisdom and experience in implementation. I know that my noble friend will regret not being here for day seven of the committee but, as she explained to the House of Lords last night, she had an appointment she could not change because this day was unexpected. I would like to add my words of thanks to everyone who has been here all the way through these seven days of committee, I feel it has been a quality experience and debate.

And particularly thank the noble Lady the Minister. There is no doubt that the central aim of this bill, the the central aim of this bill, the long overdue abolition of section 21 must be delivered swiftly. This abolition will ensure renters no longer live under the threat of no fault evictions. This was a promise that the last government failed to deliver over a shocking six year period. We have already heard devastating consequence of this broken promise with over 120,000 households served with those no fault evictions notices since it was first served in 2019, when Baroness May of Maidenhead was Prime Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It should also be directed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It should also be directed to Lord Bird, as I read section 1 of the bill that all existing tenancies are made periodic tenancies and that are made periodic tenancies and that most involve ceasing of the use of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

section 21. Yes. That is exactly what I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying this will bring about the abolition of section 21, about the abolition of section 21, yes. That failure has rightly eroded trust. It now falls to this trust. It now falls to this government to deliver what was promised and do so without further delay. Renters should not be asked delay. Renters should not be asked to wait longer for the basic security that this legislation is security that this legislation is intended to provide.

We recognise proper implementation matters, you proper implementation matters, you will not find that surprising given every former member of this team is a current or former counsellor. The changes are significant and must be supported by proper guidance and resourcing, not least for courts and Local Authorities. We need preparation but that must not become an excuse for indefinite delay. There is a question of balance where regulation and consultation will be needed. That will be carried out with urgency and to a published timetable.

Renters deserve certainty about when the protections will come into force, but so do landlords. Those operating in good faith needs Those operating in good faith needs to understand the framework and... Delays would only undermine confidence in this long-awaited reform. I have one central question for the noble Lady the Minister, the government has publicly stated section 21 will be abolished immediately in their 2024 Manifesto. However, clause 145, subsection 5A, indicates the abolition will take effect two months after the act is passed.

The bill says it is a decision for the Secretary of State. Can she is the opportunity to clarify, apologies if she has already explained this but I am slightly confused on this question, which timeframe is correct? It will be helpful to understand the time lapse between Lord Bird's amendments and the commencement date of abolition of section 21. Many of us were here until 1 o'clock in the morning on Monday and many of us were here until midnight last night and this is now our seventh day.

I am certain there are many peers he would do that again and again and again in order to get to the abolition of section 21. And in order to get to it at pace to this long promise, much-needed change in the law, so I look forward to hearing now, when.
16:45
16:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
And I thank him for all his knowledge, and particularly this passion he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people. Thank you. I will speak to his amendments, 278, 296 and 291 first of all. These amendments along with others would bring the majority of the act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these benches have consistently urged the government to not take this approach.

We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates, and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords. From abrupt and potentially unfair changes. A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day one.

Indeed, the evidence bears this out in a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications. And a further 39% said they knew little about it at all. These statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market, one we must not ignore. Therefore we believe a clear transition period is necessary. And the amendments to 81, 287, 288 and 289 tabled by Lord Hacking present a credible and constructive challenge to the government's current position.

They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to this bill, an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that bill would apply the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months notice. And phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, for preparation, and for implementation. I urge the government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a and orderly transition.

We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent home, at a price. But to deliver that we need a functioning rental market. One with good quality homes to meet growing demands. We need more homes in the right places. This bill regrettably puts this in danger. Rather than boosting supply it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong renters will pay the price.

Balance is essential. At the present time we believe this bill does not strike that balance. Before I sit down I just want to thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has
16:52
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
conducted this first bill she has taken through committee stage. And taken through committee stage. And all noble Lords who have taken part in what have been some really in what have been some really excellent and so well-informed excellent and so well-informed debates. Over the last six days. And my Lords, I look forward to report my Lords, I look forward to report stage. I thank the noble Lord bird stage. I thank the noble Lord bird and Lord Hacking for their amendments relating to the commencement of measures in the commencement of measures in the bill, and Lord Deben, Baroness Grender, Lord Cromwell and Baroness Scott for participating in this Scott for participating in this group.

I will turn first to amendments to 78, 282, 289 and 291. amendments to 78, 282, 289 and 291. In the name of Lord Bird. Can I add my tribute to all the work he does my tribute to all the work he does to tackle homelessness. He is a great hero of mine and it's really a great privilege to work with him. He rightly notes the importance of ending section 21, which is a major contributor to homelessness levels in England. And a major cost as well to councils, now spend over £2 billion a year on temporary accommodation.

That was from the last four years figures, I heard London figure is currently £4 million per day spent on homelessness in London. Much of that is driven by section 21 evictions. As well as the misery created for individuals and families, these evictions put pressure on the public purse and costs that would be much better spent on other public services. These amendments seek to bring most of the measures of the Renters' Rights Bill forward to Royal Assent, with the exception of some measures.

The government agrees with the noble Lord that the measures in this bill are urgently needed and that's why we move swiftly to introduce this bill swiftly in our first legislative program for government. To end the scourge of section 21 evictions as soon as possible we will introduce the new tenancy private rented sector system in one stage, on this date the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies, existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after this date will be governed by the new rules.

There will be no delay, the abolition of section 21, fixed term contracts and other vital measures in the bill will happen as quickly as possible. Of course, we must do this in a responsible manner as noble Lords have mentioned. We are therefore also committed to making sure implementation takes place smoothly. As such, it is essential wider work around the bill is allowed to conclude before implementation takes place, that includes production of guidance, updating court forms, making secondary legislation. For example the information landlords are required to give tenants in the written statement of terms will be set out in secondary legislation, and work is underway already on these matters.

But we do need to get it right. We will appoint the date of implementation via secondary legislation, which is typical when commencing complex primary legislation. This will allow us to give certainty about when the system will come into force. Relying on Royal Assent would create significant uncertainty around the specific date, I think it's important we don't do that. I would say to the noble Lord Bird, I was lucky enough to benefit from the post-war Labour government's drive to build social housing.

So I could have done but I didn't grow up in the kind of housing he described. Our social housing was built in new towns, that was the last time social housing was built at any scale in this country. We have promised that again and committed to billion pounds to social and affordable housing. So he has my personal commitment to move this forward as quickly as possible. Lord Deben talked about the speed of legislation. I have only been a Minister for months but I'm already learning the frustration of time lags, I thought councils move a bit too slowly at times but we certainly need to move things forward more quickly.

Of course, this isn't just about legislation in terms of housing. We are trying to move on housing at some speed. We have already provided funding to improve construction skills, funding for officers, a new planning policy framework, over half a billion for homelessness, and the social housing funding that I've already mentioned. So we do understand this needs to be moved forward quickly. So we will work as quickly as we can on that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I concur with the comments across the house about what a very the house about what a very professional job the Minister has professional job the Minister has done in engaging with members across the house. She did make specific reference to working closely with reference to working closely with the Ministry of Justice on court digitalisation and extra funding for court costs. Is she in a position court costs. Is she in a position before we finish to update the House on what progress has been made on that? There are still people across that? There are still people across the house you are very concerned about the likely ramifications of the abolition of section 21,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whenever it happens. I understand the concern. There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the concern. There is ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Justice, I hope before report stage to update members on report stage to update members on whether to have got to. As soon as we are able to, it would be helpful to have a running commentary on it. to have a running commentary on it. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing is in a dialogue at the for Housing is in a dialogue at the moment with the Ministry of Justice, and I will update noble Lords as soon as we get to the end of those discussions.

I will now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Hacking. Amendment 281, it currently provides that these provisions, intervals two months after Royal Assent, I see no reason why these amendments should be delayed. It provides tenants with better powers to enforce housing standards. Amendment 287 sets of time-limit between Royal Assent and the implement determination of the tenancy reforms in the private rented sector, amendment 288 changes the implement determination in the bill, it would require that measures are applied to new tenancies no earlier than six months after Royal Assent, and to existing tenancies no earlier than 12 months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 289 would require the conversion of existing tenancies to assure tenancies under the new tenancy reform system takes place no earlier than 12 months after Royal Assent. We will end the scourge of section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, and we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector system in one stage. I can assure my noble friend this government will ensure this sector has adequate notice of the system taking place, in order to support tenants landlords and agents to adjust we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system while making sure tenants can while making sure tenants can benefit from this new system that they have waited so long for, as soon as it is realistically possible.

We are planning a wide possible. We are planning a wide reaching campaign to raise awareness of our reforms, supported by clear, of our reforms, supported by clear, straightforward and easy to read guidance to help landlords prepare for change and tenants be ready for for change and tenants be ready for it. On that basis I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendments. amendments.
16:59
Lord Bird Portrait Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-
-
Thank you. I unfortunately was not in a position to sit up last night or the night before, because I have a full-time job. Yesterday I was in Cardiff trying to work with people in the government there, having a big event around the big issue. It was absolutely wonderful to be there and to be given the opportunity to work hopefully with the Welsh assembly around the idea of social housing and social justice and all that. Forgive me for not being here last night.

And to see all your noble work. I would like to say just a few things. I think one of the real problems is that people don't understand the role of a tenant. They know the role of a landlord, because the landlord owns a piece of property and they rent it out to somebody. But the role of the tenant over the last 50 years is been to enrich the landlord. If you actually look at what's happened to the property market over the last 50 years, 40 years, the role of the tenant has been to make sure that the landlord gets richer and richer.

Because we know the way the property market has been going, it's been going in a direction where people can buy a house one decade, and my ex-wife did so, and sell it later on in the decade for two or maybe three times. The landlord would often have done not much more than rent the property out and keep it going. I'm telling you from my experience, telling you from my experience, In my experience, the tenants have made a very large section of the population, who are small landlords, much wealthier.

So the reason I'm going on about section 21 is, I think it is a week balancing. It is terrible to not know that if your property you are living in is third rate needs some repair, I think it's terrible that you won't go to the landlord, because the landlord will often, and it has happened, and I know many people have, would be put down as a troublesome tenant and just move them out and move somebody else in. So there's all sorts of reasons why it is perilous being a tenant.

I'm a tenant at the moment. I'm a tenant because I'm living in Norwich because my children, my daughters at school there. And it's pretty, I don't know this guy. I don't know what's going to happen. And he might afterwards send me a letter to say, Lord Birt, I'm sorry, I want you to move on. And I can't do anything about it. I have invested enormous amount of time and effort in being in Norwich. The thing is, it's so perilous. And I want to get rid of the powerlessness.

And I don't want it to be slowed down. I don't want it to be interrupted, kicked into the long grass. Simply because we don't want to address an incredibly serious misnomer that exists in the life of many, many people who can't afford to buy property, they can't afford to get on the property ladder and actually themselves become landlords. So there saying I would love it if you would do your best to love it if you would do your best to kick it into play rather than kick it into the long grass and godless you all, and I'm really appreciative of all the hard work that you have of all the hard work that you have done and the whole of the House of this.

Thank you, and I would therefore like to withdraw my amendment.
17:03
None Portrait Deputy chair of Committees. Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-

Is it your lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments not moved, amendment 281, Lord Hacking. You wish to move your amendment? Already spoken to it? amendment? Already spoken to it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment to hundred 82, Lord Bird, not moved, amendments to rate Bird, not moved, amendments to rate three, 285, not moved. Amendment 286, Lord Bird, not moved. 286, Lord Bird, not moved. Amendments to hundred 87, 288, not move. The question is that clause 145 stand part of the bill. As many 145 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 146, The contents have it.

In clause 146, Lord Hacking, amendment 289 not Lord Hacking, amendment 289 not move. Amendment 290 move formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 291, Lord Bird, not move. The question is that clause 146 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. In schedule six, amendment 292, Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is that this be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments to 93, 294, Baroness Scott, not move. Amendments to 95, 96, Baroness Taylor, moved formally en bloc. The question is these amendments be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

The question is that schedule six The question is that schedule 6B the sixth schedule to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 147 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 148, amendments to 972972301. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. The question is that clause 148 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. And clause 149. The question is that this clause stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. That this be the title of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

That concludes the committee's proceedings in the bill,
17:07
17:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
With the leave of the house, I shall repeat a statement made in another place, the statement is as follows. With permission, I will make a statement on the cross government review of sanctions and commentator on and enforcement. I for promise to update the House on this issue at the earliest opportunity and I'm glad to have the chance to do so today. For those members who want to get into the full details, they are being published on gov.uk.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury and a vital foreign-policy and national policy tool. They are used to deter and detect threats and demonstrate our values. Our sanctions support UK interests, protect our citizens and defend international peace and. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine as we debated in the House yesterday. As I said then, the UK has sanctioned over 2,400 targets and a Russian regime and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began.

The amount of money that would have allowed him to prosecute his terrible war for many more years. Since July 2024, this government have introduced over 500 new sanctions designations 500 new sanctions designations against individuals entities and ships stop last Friday the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fruit carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 chips, almost half of Putin's in type fleet.

Mine is serious about peace, agreeing in principle for a full unconditional and immediate ceasefire -- Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His readiness for that piece is to stated by his being in Turkey. Putin has dodged delays, all the while raining down to on Ukraine. If Putin does not engage seriously on peace, the UK and our allies will have no further choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table. Alongside taking measures against Russia, using designations to uphold human rights and promote democracy around the world.

Last month, we targeted programming operatives responsible for destabilising Moldova, and was sanctioned corrupt officials in Georgia and Guatemala for undermining democracy in the rule of law. We will not stop there, we will continue to expose maligned activity wherever we find it, using the full range of sanctions pulls out disposal to shape the world for the better. Sanctions play a crucial role in the Foreign Secretary's mission to tackle corruption and dirty money which is vital to protect the UK from criminals and safeguard our democracy.

In January, the Foreign Secretary announced our new world first legislation to you sanctions to crackdown on those fuelling irregular migration. This government are committed, not only to using sanctions effectively, but this is the main focus of the statement, to ensuring they are enforced rigorously. That means punishing serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecutions. In a position we recognise there was a need for greater focus on sanctions enforcement. Since we came to office we have been working across government on this, as well as liaising with law enforcement partners and industry.

In October, we launched the office fought trade sanctions implementation which is a new civil enforcement powers to crack down on those seeking to soften the blow of our sanctions. The same time we introduce civil powers for the Department for Transport to force transport sanctions. We have reinforced the office for financial implementation in His Majesty's Treasury, known as Azov Sea for short, and multiagency joint maritime security centre enabling them better to tackle inflation and develop new tools targeting the Russian shadow fleet including the English Channel.

The investments in improvements have paid off, last month there was a penalty imposed a £406-£5000 on a major law firms subsidiary for breaches of sanctions linked to Russia invasion of Ukraine. We saw the U.K.'s first successful prosecution and a Russia financial sanctions regulations thanks to the excellent work by the National Crime Agency. I commended and its teams for the incredible work they have done. I expect to see more enforcement action. I can't go into the details of that and House but should be assured that our teams are working effectively in a range of agencies and across government.

Funding from the economic deterrent initiative has been critical to strengthening our capabilities and maintaining the UK reputation among its allies stop that initiative is fostering functions work in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. In the British Virgin Islands, it's enabled the NCA to support enforcement and combat potential circumvention. Excellent work has been going on in that regard and we hosted OTs and CDS at Lancaster house a few months ago, to collaborate and ensure we are improving capability across those territories.

I turned the enforcement review. I'm determined to go after those who try to fade our sanctions. In October, I launched across ministerial review to look at how we can improve UK sanctions and mentation and enforcement. A strong sanctions regime is crucial for achieving our foreign-policy goals and in turn building a secure and prosperous UK. This forward leading review had three goals, first, to make it easier to comply without sanctions, it will help businesses to support us in our shared goals. 2nd to increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and make it clear that avoiding sanctions does not pay.

And thirdly to enhance our ability to take robust action against those seeking to evade our measures. Publishing report on the conclusions, and I'm glad of this opportunity to set out how we will ensure that the UK's approach continues to set a goal standard. We know the vast majority of businesses agree with our sanctions and are keen to work with us to make sure they are in.. To simplify compliance, we have launched a new email alert system to keep UK businesses updated on designations, legislation, licences and other elated topics.

-- Related. We are making guidance clear to access providing further clarity to UK industry on ownership, control and introducing a single sanctions list for all designated persons. We will also assess the benefits of creating a single reporting point for suspected breaches. To give our sanctions extra bite, and deter innovation, will publish a new enforcement strategy making clear the consequences of non-compliance stop we will look at new options to accelerate civil penalties for financial sanctions breaches including for early settlement schemes and we are dedicated to strengthening our enforcement pools and ensuring we have the necessary powers, capabilities and intelligence.

We have taken action already cut last month we introduced measures to prevent designated individuals from holding direct roles in the UK, protecting our brilliant British businesses. The Department for Business and Trade is updating laws to protect workers who report breaches of financial transport and certain trade sanctions giving them crucial with protections those actions taken together and outpaced will further improve our world-class sanctions regime, allowing the UK to project strength and promote the rule of law across the world.

We are not satisfied with just those measures, we are committed to exploring other areas so we can go even further and deeper to improve enforcement. The number of those areas will take longer to scope and I will be able to update the House on them in due course. We will explore options for more effective join up on intelligence, including the merits of a new joint sanctions intelligence function. Will consider the introduction of sanctions and licensing controls for exports with a high risk of sanctions diversion stop we will continue to support the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, enhancing the enforcement capabilities and we will explore enhancing transport powers to target specific aircraft with We will update Parliament when additional outcomes have been scoped.

We have brought forward a number of pieces of sanctions legislation recently, we expanded the Russian regime this week into a range of areas and our Syria regime in light of changed circumstances in light of changed circumstances there. Let me conclude by reiterating the government's commitment to strengthening the implementation and enforcement of UK As we deliver sanctions set out in the review, actions in the review, we will continue to engage across departments and within industry, wider stakeholders and international partners to maximise the effectiveness of our work.

I commend the statement to the House.
17:17
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Let me thank the noble Lady for repeating the statement and say that we on these benches welcome measures to bear down on Putin's regime and undermined his ability to wage this barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. The refusal of Putin to attend today's talks in Turkiye is another sign that Russia is not interested in peace. Putin could end the war today but has refused time and again to bring an end to the violence he has inflicted on the people of Ukraine.

The toll we have inflicted on Russia and their warmaking capacities is something I'm proud of. It stems from the sanctions regime we formed in government and this current government have continued. We impose the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. Centring around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups, all of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and allies have been exerting means Russia can no longer afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Russia's interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, welfare payments are being cut, our collective sanctions have stripped Putin of $450 billion worth of benefits since February 2022.

Money Russia could otherwise have spent in that war in Ukraine. We welcome the statement from the government today. It is vital the current government does all it can to crackdown on those who violate the regime and we must do all we can to stop the flow of resources into Russia. Some questions remain over the current sanctions regime and what more we can do with it to oppose Putin and this vile invasion. I would like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether she can confirm whether her department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions against Russia, what engagement is the government having with regimes trying to cheat the sanctioning response.

I also want to ask the noble Baroness the Minister if she is able to update the House on when the government's internal deadline for getting proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club's. Can she update as with the engagement with the trustees, the government of Portugal and the European commission on this issue. The sums we are talking about are in excess of £2 billion, a substantial amount of Unlock to support those currently in need in Ukraine. It is important the government does all it can to work at pace on this issue.

I hope that in considering the outcome of the review, the government will give thought as to how it can communicate the purpose of the sanctions regime. People should be left in no doubt that this regime is one of the primary weapons we can have to oppose Putin. Can I ask the noble Baroness the Minister what practical steps the government is taking to keep UK businesses informed of changes to sanctions legislation and its purpose. In conclusion, there has been much coverage and discussion in recent weeks about initiative to secure peace, that is welcome.

We must not be blinded by the headlines which hail coalitions of the willing and multilateral intent. For all of these words which are welcomed in principle, we cannot forget that the reality of the situation for people in Ukraine remains unchanged. Ukrainians are fighting on the frontline, facing airstrikes in their towns and villages and cities and they are suffering death, horrendous loss and injury. We continue to urge the government in the strongest terms to leveraged Britain's influence in every way it can to help ensure peace is secured on terms that are acceptable to Ukraine.

Ukraine must be the ones to decide their own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future, it is incumbent on us as one of their closest allies to support them in this desire. I am impressed with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am impressed with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am impressed with the Minister's efficiency. She replied to me on Monday when I asked for an to me on Monday when I asked for an opportunity to have a wider discussion on sanctions, I did not anticipate she would deliver that three days later. I have the three days later. I have the opportunity of debating every sanction that the previous administration and this administration have put in place since the post Brexit regime has been established. These benches have supported each step but we have supported each step but we have taken the opportunity of making the case that the sanctions tools should be more impact fully, especially when there have been occasions such as that within Georgia where, as
17:22
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
as that within Georgia where, as referenced in the statement, we do not believe the sanctions go far enough with regards to the repressive actions of the Georgian repressive actions of the Georgian regime and individuals within it. On Israel and Gaza we have repeatedly called for widening of the sanctions against those in the Netanyahu administration who are inflicting and facilitating the infliction of great humanitarian crisis both within Gaza and the West Bank. I have made it my mission to see the Wagner Group prescribed and I was grateful of the previous government that did it.

But as actions should be chasing after Russia, any organisation sanctioned or prescribed by the UK, they will have to be continuing action on this. Overall, we welcome the statement and the review. I had an opportunity of looking online at the review, fundamentally I think it found there was nothing wrong. But it did have a number of areas where it wanted to go ahead. There was a curious line saying that the fundamental principles, securing international agreement across all 193 UN member states or sanctions, that is rather impossible when we are sanctioning quite a chunk of them.

There was a bit of Whitehall verbiage. We are now going to be expecting an invigorated toolkit of abilities, capacity, powers, actionable, intelligent and robust enforcement. We are offered a user-friendly guidance and new enforcement strategy. I'm looking forward to them. We will debate what that means them. We will debate what that means when we get them. The... We are promised an early civil settlement scheme. One of the areas where, if not today, perhaps a Minister might be able to say, this is an area where it has raised the slightest of alarm signals with me on an early settlement scheme.

How will this interact with what the review has said that it needs to increase deterrence? It is not necessary deterrence if we have an early settlement scheme for those that are breaching. The Minister referred to the £465,000 penalty of making funds available for the benefit of a designated person without a licence, but, this is welcome, this is only one of five since 2023, with the total penalty of just 485,000. Without that 465,000 there has only been £20,000 of penalties. Is this lack of enforcement or stunning level of adherence to the UK sanctions? I looked at...

I had the opportunity of looking at the excellent OFSI threat assessment report that goes into more detail about some of the context. I want to ask a couple of questions, one of them linked with the point raised by the noble Lord, we have a number of frozen assets within the UK, we discussed on Monday new rounds of serious and, we have £157 million in frozen Syria assets, given what the Minister said on Monday and given what President Trump has been saying about the new Syrian President, I wonder if the Minister could write to me with regards to the status of that amount, who is the ultimate legal beneficial owner of that level of frozen assets of concern? If the former Assad regime or linked to the former Assad regime, presumably we should not be offering them back and why haven't we seized those assets which could be used for the benefit of the Syrian people who desperately need it.

We now have reported £25 million. The benches would like to see a draft bill on what would be required under UK law on seizing required under UK law on seizing On On others, On others, we On others, we do On others, we do not On others, we do not need On others, we do not need to On others, we do not need to act only at the slowest pace of others either in the G-7 or elsewhere. These assets have been frozen under UK legislation and the power to seize them will be UK legislation.

If there needs to be powers to change them under UK legislation, we need to see what that is. Putin should not be rewarded by getting money back at the end of the process. The report also highlighted what it said was concerning number of... Growing number of enablers and enabling countries. It singled out some of them, including the highest level of growth in the UAE. What diplomatic tools are we using for those countries which we know are the source of enablers who are circumventing UK financial sanctions.

That is growing. The threat assessment report also says there is almost certainly enablers using cryptoasset to breach UK financial sanctions. If the Minister would write to me on the scale of this, what is the estimated scale of this? And have we the same approach on coordination with allies to ensure this is the case given the dubious means by which President Trump is using cryptoasset and the inability of understanding where the source of those cryptoassets are. I wish to reference China, we do believe our sanctions should go further with regards to those in the Chinese government that are restricting the rights of those within Hong Kong and those acting on an operating China's repression here in the United Kingdom, which is unacceptable.

I will be pursuing this further in this chamber. We had an opportunity today, a privilege today to have the opportunity to meet the former president, welcoming her to Parliament, the highest level official of Taiwanese government that has ever visited Parliament. I pay tribute to the noble Lady, Baroness D'Souza and others who have worked tirelessly over years. It was an inspiration because it was about those who are Democrats fighting against repression, building up resilience and ensuring they have support in the United Kingdom.

Our sanctions regime should be helping exactly those people such as her great leadership and it was privileged to have her in Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. I will start by thanking Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will start by thanking Lord Purvis. We like to deliver promptly, this government. I did not anticipate discussing this quite so soon either. I have this statement and a 6 o'clock on my diary. I have and a 6 o'clock on my diary. I have I do welcome noble Lords for I do welcome noble Lords for encouraging us to go further and I
17:30
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
note the comments that have been made in different sanctions, China and others, that have come up, obviously we don't comment on future designations. We have rehearse that many times in this chamber but we do here when noble Lords make these observations and encourage the government, we take these things on board and we listen to what is said. But we obviously don't respond and comment ahead of time. I take Lord Purvis's point on verbiage entirely fair. We do try our best with these things.

I think it is clear what the report is saying but where we can improve specific language then clearly we should be open to doing that and I do understand the point of early settlement. All I would say is, it's an additional tool stop sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it's not. It's important to only use it when it is the right thing to do and when it has the effect that we want and it is not less impactful option. So I understand the concern, I think it's legitimate to have that race but I think it's important to have that is another way of tackling this.

On the serial frozen assets and also the Russian frozen assets, we continue to look at this. There's an issue around frozen assets, as we have been over many times. There are legal concerns about this. And there are potential consequences of British assets in other parts of the world as well. So we are not, we do hear the argument and it is something that we continue to look at and also the point about enablers. We do have regular and detailed engagement where that is appropriate with partner countries because that's an important point and the government is mindful of making sure that we use the levers that we have to address that.

On Lord Callaghan's point, I thank him for has welcome of this report and completely agree with every word he said about Putin, Ukraine and Russia, and I'm happy to acknowledge the work that previous government did on this and we are building on that work, as he would want us to do. The Chelsea football club issue, I don't have anything new. I wish I did. I wish that we could get this resolved, get the money were needs to be. We continuing to work on this.

At every level. And I hope that we are able to come back to this House with some, with a different answer on this very soon. he is right what he says about communication with business and making sure that the rules and the updates and all of that is as widely known as possible. There are measures suggested in the report that will be implemented about email alerts and things like that, and will continue to work through DBT and other opportunities to make sure that that happens.

And when he asks us if we will be leveraging our influence, the answer to that is absolutely yes. But I think Germany, this work is ongoing. This is not something where you will ever complete ass, and you will see we have done all the work we are going to do on sanctions, we have got it completely right. Because we are in competition here with criminal gangs and with different ways of working and we have to keep, this needs to keep evolving and we need to keep it under review and keep challenging ourselves, keep changing and innovating.

So I'm grateful to parties opposite for their support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and at work. -- In that work. May I congratulate noble Baroness the Minister for the cause the Minister for the cause government review and for adding a little bit extra to the statement that was produced to us which was that was produced to us which was most welcome have a couple of queries. I'm welcoming both the queries. I'm welcoming both the government and the opposition 's
17:35
17:36
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
they have what they need, to enable them to do the job we want them to do. I think that getting there and we speak to them very regularly. And we are hopeful... Well, territories, he makes them eagerly, and to something he's concerned about. We had discussions with them earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this year so we will keep the House updated as we need to. Could I refer to yesterday's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I refer to yesterday's implementation of the additional sanction arrangements on letting sanction arrangements on letting agents and the like. And this I'm agents and the like. And this I'm very welcome because there is no doubt that there has been a very considerable use of housing and the considerable use of housing and the like, as a means of establishing funds in this country, about people funds in this country, about people who shouldn't be doing that. The thing that I'm concerned about is whether the government can do more to help the letting agents and others explain this to all the others explain this to all the people who really aren't affected but who have to give a source of information which they wouldn't have information which they wouldn't have had to do before.

And there seem that it is very important to that it is very important to overcome the natural irritation which for example we have now when you want a bank account, the you want a bank account, the difficulties that happen. And because of this, I do hope that there could be discussions between the government and the real estate industry right across-the-board, as to that form of words that could be used so that when people are faced used so that when people are faced with this additional burden, they can say to themselves, well I'm doing something useful, I'm doing something because of what is happening in the Ukraine, and make happening in the Ukraine, and make it into a positive action rather than what I fear the moment, have just read the documents that have gone out from letting agents, it gone out from letting agents, it just looks like another burden on just looks like another burden on people's shoulders.

I want to make this a success. Can we get the language right and can we use it as a positive mechanism?
17:38
17:38
17:39
17:40
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
chair of the Thompson foundation. I was privileged to be at the launch of the FCDO media, media free exhibition. Presided over by my honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. And I would just like to Secretary. And I would just like to put in a plea that some part of the assets and the income from them the added to the modest but invaluable budget that there is to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

media freedom. I hear what my noble friend says

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear what my noble friend says and he also wanted us to move on frozen assets, and it is something frozen assets, and it is something that we all agree on. We have managed, along with our partners, to release the $50 billion at the ERA, but I completely know what noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I completely know what noble Lords are saying about wanting us to do more. I very much welcome the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much welcome the Minister has said and I'm glad we have cross-party support for this but I wonder if I could just inject a question relating to some of the question relating to some of the comments that have been made by the American administration about the possibility of easing sanctions against Russia. President Trump has said it in more than one occasion. Can I seek clarification assurance Can I seek clarification assurance Can I seek clarification assurance from the Minister that our sanctions is under our control and will be subject to Parliament's approval or disapproval for any change.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

disapproval for any change. Our sanctions regime is the UK sanction regime, we make our decisions in accordance with laws here. And although we don't comment on future designations, or lifting of designations, I have no reason to think that it is the UK Government's intention, until there is peace between Ukraine and Russia, and between Ukraine and Russia, and Putin, withdraw his troops, as he could do today, and stop this illegal war, that we have any plans to change our general approach to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the use of sanctions on Russia. I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page