Lords Chamber

Wednesday 15th October 2025

(began 1 month, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: NHS support to unpaid carers
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foster Foster requested Foster requested Baroness Pitkeathley.
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:53
None Portrait Legislation: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill - committee stage
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And no has to be in committee on the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill Lord Murphy of Torfaen.
15:53
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I understand. That no amendments. Have been set. Down to this bill. Not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript. committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

objects, I beg to move that the order of. Commitment be discharged. The question is that the order of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the order of commitment be discharged, as many of that room will say, content, not content. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The. Contents have it report of. The. Public Authorities (Fraud, Error

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. Baroness Sherlock. Apologies, my Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies, my Lords, I. Beg to me that this report be now received. The question is this. Report be. Now received?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now received? As many of that we will say content contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment one. Baroness Kramer. Oh it's. It's I put down amendments one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's I put down amendments one and 20. The two amendments in this group to raise again the issue of whistleblowing. I mean, very sadly, I don't think it's necessary to repeat in any detail why the
15:54
None Portrait Legislation: Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill - report stage (day 1)
-

existing whistleblowing framework is completely inadequate. We only have
15:54
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
completely inadequate. We only have to look at the scandals at the post office. Contaminated blood. Let be office. Contaminated blood. Let be the Hillsborough cover up, the fake costings for HS2, the mis selling of costings for HS2, the mis selling of PPI mini bonds are now car finance, and these are just a few of the very and these are just a few of the very real outrages and tragedies that could have been nipped in the bud if we had had a system that in we had had a system that in actuality and effectively protected whistleblowers who speak out, and whistleblowers who speak out, and which ensured investigation of their disclosures, most importantly, disclosures, most importantly, victims of these many scandals would have been spared.

But also the taxpayer would have been protected from huge compensation payouts. My Lords, I believe strongly that the Public Sector Fraud Authority, sitting as it does under the Cabinet sitting as it does under the Cabinet Office and with its investigative powers, is very well placed to be powers, is very well placed to be the hub of a proper framework. I would call it an office of the whistleblower, but that's not a whistleblower, but that's not a precious issue. That and at least act as a hub for whistleblowing.

That's protection and investigation across the whole of the public sector. It could provide proper guidance to government departments and agencies, set standards for proper whistleblowing protection and redress, ensure investigation when appropriate, and provide the consistency, clarity and ease of use that are essential to effectiveness. Now I realise that the amendments that I have done are inadequate to this task, and what I'm seeking from the government is a sense of also some, some a conclusion that there is real progress in this direction.

Increasingly, the government has recognised the importance of the issue and the Minister herself, and I have to give her real credit, has commendably talked about the importance of whistleblowing. Collectively, the House has made progress in the Employment Rights Bill on limiting the abuse of non-disclosure agreements and in the Armed Forces Commissioner's Act, in developing a whistleblowing framework for the commissioner, which will possibly extend to all of defence. Now, in the context of fraud and whistleblowing, we currently await the second part of the Fisher Review of Disclosure.

This bill itself contains provisions for an independent review of the ministers functions, so there are tools available to the government for this government. Ask any other. There is always the risk that without change, new scandals will occur and those would then be laid directly at the government's door. And nobody wants that. This is an area where all parties should be cooperating and not competing. And so I look forward to hearing the minister's reply, and I hope to conclude that progress is seriously being made.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment repays clause one, page one, line 13 at end, insert the page one, line 13 at end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled
15:57
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I want to begin today by thanking both the noble by thanking both the noble Baronesses, the ministers of Set and noble Lords across the House for their engagement with us on the substance of this bill. Since we entered the committee stage, I feel that we've had some very valuable discussions, and I welcome that the government has approached this with a view to compromise and listen to and listening to noble Lords across the House on the bill.

I hope we can conclude report in the same spirit, and I look forward to the discussions we shall have in these sessions. My Lords, we on these benches welcome that we are starting report by discussing an important issue. And I thank the noble Lady Baroness Cramer for bringing forward these two amendments. Both amendments in this group speak to a common principle that individuals who come forward with evidence of wrongdoing should be able to do so safely, confidently and with the assurance that their actions will lead to meaningful action rather than personal detriment.

My Lords, the decision to do the right thing and report wrongdoing is far from an easy decision for anyone to make. To come forward with evidence of fraud is often to put oneself at considerable risk of losing employment, damaging one's reputation, or straining relationships. If we expect people to do the right thing, then it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the system does right by them in return. Whistleblowers are very often the first line of defence against fraud. They can identify irregularities and provide information that would otherwise remain hidden, information that the public sector fraud authority will need in order to act swiftly and effectively.

And that is why it is so important that individuals know that they will be listened to, supported and protected. Only then will they feel able to come forward, and only then will we be able to tackle fraud before it escalates. My Lords, in addition to the channel set out in amendment one, this principle links directly to the Second Amendment before US amendment 20, which proposes the establishment of an office of the whistleblower for public sector fraud. The purpose of such an office would be to oversee and safeguard the process of whistleblowing, to ensure that concerns are acted upon, and that those who raised them are not left exposed or ignored.

We understand that the noble Lady has likely brought this proposal to emphasise the importance of the issue, rather than to suggest this particular structure is the final answer. And we shall, of course, be very interested to hear how the noble Baroness the Minister, will meet the challenge that has been set on this question. My Lords, as the noble Baroness Lady Kramer set out, whistleblowers can only operate effectively when they know that their efforts will not be in vain. And when they know that the authorities will respond and the risks they take will not go on and on.

In the specific context of this bill, that raises a very practical question, which relates to the amendment that we have brought to clause two. If a whistleblower were to bring actionable evidence of fraud to light, would the public Sector Fraud Authority be able to act on it directly, or would they still have to wait for a formal invitation from the relevant department or authority before beginning an investigation? Our reading of the bill suggests the latter, and if that is the case, then the system risks leaving whistleblowers stranded, even when they have provided precisely the sort of information that this legislation is intended to uncover.

So I would be grateful if the noble Lady the Baroness the Minister could use this opportunity to set out clearly how the framework envisaged under the Bill would work in practice to protect and honour those who come forward. While we may not believe that a statutory office of the whistleblower in the form proposed is necessarily the right approach, and indeed the principle behind it is unassailable, whistleblowers must know that their efforts will be taken seriously, that they should be, that they will be shielded from retaliation, and that that courage will help to protect the public purse rather than be punished for it.

My Lords, the fight against fraud depends as much on human integrity as it does on institutional power. We should do everything we can to ensure that those who act with integrity are supported, not silenced. And for that reason, I have the government give serious consideration to the merits of these amendments and to the broader protections that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

underpin them, and answer the questions that have been raised. Here.
16:02
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My Lords, so we begin report stage. Can I first thank all noble Lords for their genuinely Lords for their genuinely constructive engagement on this important bill as we seriously engage in efforts to protect taxpayers money, something I know every member of your Lordships' House cares vehemently about. Can I also especially thank the opposition front Benches, who have been so, who have genuinely given much of their time to make sure this works. And I hope that you will see through the responses from the government today.

We have tried to listen and make as many amendments as possible to make sure this bill is effective and will work in practice. I want to once again warmly welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Cramer on the important issue of whistleblowing, as I did during committee stage, the noble Baronesses commitment and diligence in this area. As ever, she has proved to be tenacious and determined, but with due cause. Ensuring that we can prevent some of the appalling scandals that she has named my Lords, it is clear that protections for whistleblowing are a key aspect of counter fraud investigations.

A 2023 National Audit Office report into whistleblowing showed that a total of 41 organisations employing civil servants recorded and reported 939 concerns over a three year period, and fraud was consistently the most common category, representing 39.9% of all concerns across the three years. It is only right that the PSFA closely considers its role in this landscape. As such, I am pleased to have an opportunity to place on record our efforts. Since your lordships last debated the issue. We are listening to your lordships House.

We are doing everything we can to ensure that both this legislation and the work of the PSFA are effective, as and as impactful as they can be. Officials across government have come together to understand what can be done in the public sector. Fraud, whistleblowing, space, in particular, the PSFA Bill team has worked with the other bill teams where this important issue has also been raised recently in your Lordships' House to ensure that departments work in partnership to deliver a coherent response.

As a result, I am pleased to give the noble Lady Baroness Kramer a series

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of commitments this government can make. First to ensure. This important issue continues to be taken forward effectively. be taken forward effectively. Officials will continue co-ordinating across the whistleblowing landscape to identify whistleblowing landscape to identify areas where the PSFA can add value, such as joint guidance documents. In the area of public sector fraud. the area of public sector fraud. PSFA will also seek to work closely with officials in the SFO and HMRC. with officials in the SFO and HMRC.

HMRC have deployed a whistle blower incentivization scheme, and the SFO had developed proposals for a had developed proposals for a similar scheme. PSFA and the SFO have already agreed to identify areas where they can support each areas where they can support each other's work on whistleblowing. Once Jonathan Fisher's review is published, the PSFA will work with other government departments to consider and, where possible, adopt his whistleblower recommendations. I his whistleblower recommendations. I am also pleased to announce that as soon as practicable, all likely to be within 12 months of the powers be within 12 months of the powers being first used, the government will ask the independent reviewer who will be appointed under clause who will be appointed under clause 65 of this bill, to conduct a review of SFA's use of whistleblowing in of SFA's use of whistleblowing in cases of public sector fraud.

The PSFA will also endeavour to publish updates on whistleblowing in public updates on whistleblowing in public sector fraud in its annual reports, where appropriate. Going forward, those reports will be used as an opportunity to communicate routes available for whistleblowers on public sector fraud. Also my Lords. Once this bill becomes law, PSFA will seek a place on the described sorry prescribed persons list under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998. I look forward to future engagement on this issue and given the commitments I have outlined and the necessity of maintaining the focus of this legislation, I hope that the noble Lady Baroness Kramer will withdraw her amendments.
16:06
16:06
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Finn. My Lords. I. Began by thanking the noble Baronesses opposite for their Baronesses opposite for their constructive engagement with us on this bill. Our meetings with the ministers have been genuinely useful, and I welcome the spirit of good faith and collaboration with which the noble Baroness the Minister has approached our discussions. Tackling fraud against the public purse is a shared ambition across this House, and it is in that constructive spirit that we have brought forward the amendments in this group.

As drafted. Clause two provides that the Minister may investigate or take enforcement action in respect of suspected fraud against another public authority only at the request of that public authority. In other words, the public sector fraud authority can act only if invited to do so. And indeed, that was the word used by the noble Lady in her remarks at committee. My Lords, this is an extraordinary limitation to place on an organisation or on an organisation whose very purpose is to root out fraud across government.

The Bill seeks to confer considerable powers of investigation and enforcement upon the Cabinet Office. Yet the exercise of these powers is ultimately hamstrung by the restriction in clause two. The effect is to create a PSFA that is at once empowered and yet toothless, an authority that has wide ranging powers on paper but which cannot use them unless those potentially under scrutiny choose to permit it. It cannot be right that a public authority suspected of fraud has the power to decide whether or not to be investigated, to rely on department or agency, to invite in the PSFA to look at themselves or their workers is frankly, far too weak.

There are obvious disincentives the reputational risk, the potential embarrassment, and the possibility of drawing attention to failings that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. As my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham notably observed at committee, assuming that departments will voluntarily expose their own shortcomings is a triumph of hope over experience. If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer, then the PSFA must be able to act proactively to initiate investigation where credible concerns arise. Not to wait passively for a polite invitation that they never come.

My Lords, I have been in government and I know how these things work. We cannot rely on goodwill. We must be both forthright and proactive in tackling this issue, which is an offence against every single person in this country. Fraud against the taxpayer is not a matter to be settled or not by an informal phone call between permanent secretaries, as we were told could currently happen. Such a situation must be backed up by a statutory mechanism that ensures action is taken swiftly and decisively.

Of course, such discussions can should happen in the first instance, but there needs to be a way to compel such action if necessary. Our amendment would therefore enable the Minister for the Cabinet Office, through the PSFA, to undertake proactive investigations or recovery actions in respect of suspected fraud against a public authority on their own initiative, where it is in the public interest to do so. It would preserve the authority's own internal fraud functions under subsection five, but it would finally give the PSFA PSFA the power it needs to do its job properly.

My Lords, this amendment is not about centralising control or creating a culture of interference. It is about clarity, closing a glaring loophole, one that every complacent official and every fraudster will otherwise see coming a mile off. It is about ensuring that when the PSFA becomes aware of fraud, that awareness marks the beginning of an investigation, not the point at which the system grinds to a halt while waiting for consent to be granted. Alongside this, and in the same spirit of strengthening accountability, we have tabled a Second Amendment one which we raised a committee and returned to again today, as we believe the government should take this opportunity to outline how they are working to create a counter fraud, duty and culture across public authorities.

This amendment would require that where a recovery made under clause ten exceeds £50,000, the public authority on whose behalf that amount was recovered must conduct an internal review into the circumstances that gave rise to that loss, and provide that review to the Minister within three months of completion. This is a practical, proportionate proposal to ensure that public bodies learn from their mistakes. It seeks to prevent the creation of a pass the buck to the PSFA mentality. The PSFA cannot and should not become a convenient dumping ground for departmental failures.

Fraud and error often originate within the systems and processes of individual departments. Responsibility for preventing and detecting it must therefore remain with them. I hope, therefore, that in her remarks on this amendment 19 the noble Baroness the Minister can set out to this House how this culture is being created and how authorities are going to be held accountable for the mess in their own houses without simply leaning on the PSFA my Lords. This is an opportunity for the opportunity for us to get this right.

If we want to tackle fraud, then we cannot create a mighty but toothless body with expansive powers on paper, but which has no power to go after fraud when it should. We risk creating a situation in which the PSFA is legally unable to tackle fraud and wire fraud, which is known about, but not formally referred to, the PSFA goes unchecked. The noble Lady may stand up and say that she expects many cases to be referred to the PSFA, but this misses the central point, which is that the PSFA must be able to tackle all fraud, of which it becomes aware and can have a role in stopping.

It is a not a question of which cases are referred to the PSFA, but which cases will be missed because the PSFA was not invited to go in after it. And this is simply not good enough. We must be really clear now in giving the PSFA the power to tackle wrongdoing proactively, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment repays. Clause to. Page two. Leave out line ten and insert whether, at the request of that public authority or whether the Minister considers it necessary in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister considers it necessary in the public interest or on the Minister's own initiative. My Lords, I. Wanted to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wanted to speak. Very. Briefly in support. Of amendment two. Before I start that, I would like to echo the words of the noble Lady Baroness Finn about the engagement on this bill, which has been, I think, exemplary and extremely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think, exemplary and extremely. Constructive, and I'm very grateful to both noble Ladies for that. The Bill. As it's currently.
16:13
16:14
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find myself in a difficult position because I'm not usually one to want to give ministers of state or the PFA, or bodies like the PFA more power. However, I am very sensitive to contemporary events in which local authorities have indeed not necessarily always been open about things happening on their watch. I'm thinking of things like the grooming gang scandal, but in all seriousness, things happen and they're covered up and I want to be in a position where, therefore the correct authorities, if they suspect something is happening that is wrong, can intervene.

So in that sense, I do, with some trepidation, support amendment two. I particularly, though, wanted to emphasise the importance of the Second Amendment in this group, amendment 19, because one of the things that is absolutely crucial to building trust, which I know the noble Lady, the Minister has emphasised this bill can do is that we have transparency, is that we are able to see wrongdoing, that it is open for the public to be able to find out what's happening locally.

I think otherwise a culture of secrecy could well continue. So I simply say these amendments are sensible in engendering real trust in the process moving forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Looks like my. My, my Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my Lords, I. Rise to speak to these these two amendments. Our principle. Generally is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Generally is. The lowest. Level of government. Should make. Those decisions. To put it up.
16:16
16:16
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords fought against. The public sector, takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the those who seek to attack the government, and damages the integrity of the state. This bill is part of the government's response to this urgent and challenging problem. The bill gives functions and powers to the Minister of the Cabinet Office, which will be exercised by all authorised officers and investigators based in the Public Sector Fraud Authority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope it will. Assist your Lordships' House if I remind noble Lords of the PSFA remind noble Lords of the PSFA mission. The PSFA is the UK Government centre of expertise for the management of fraud and associated error against the public sector. It leads the Government Counter Fraud Function, which brings Counter Fraud Function, which brings together the approximately 16,000 people who've worked in government departments and public bodies to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

departments and public bodies to fight fraud. The standards. And guidance that the function creates, led by the PSFA, must be creates, led by the PSFA, must be used in central government and can be used more widely in the public sector and beyond to improve the robustness of how we understand, prevent and respond to fraud. My prevent and respond to fraud. My Lord, these two amendments make significant changes to government's intention in bringing forward this intention in bringing forward this bill and how the PSFA works.

They change the impact of the bill and are necessary to be put into law, so are necessary to be put into law, so we cannot accept them. Turning first to clause two, the noble Baroness to clause two, the noble Baroness Lady Finn offered a version of this amendment in Grand Committee which simply deleted line ten, which I resisted because removing that line without putting something else in its place created uncertainty and potentially conflicted with the with potentially conflicted with the with the preservation of public authorities own fraud functions.

In clause two five, it is clear this draft has been influenced by the debates on the original, and I thank the noble Lady for it. However, the new version goes further and dramatically changes the impact of the bill. It creates an extensive new power for the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and changes the relationship between the PSFA and the public and public authorities they work with. The government's intention is that the PSFA offers a public sector fraud service, collaborating with public authorities, which have been attacked by fraudsters to take action to investigate, enforce and recover the funds.

Collaboration is vital in the government's fight against fraud. Noble Lords will be aware that in the last 12 months, the government that last month the government announced that in the last 12 months, since April 2024, over £480 million was prevented from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going into fraudsters pockets. cross-government. Collaboration is what PSFA is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Collaboration is what PSFA is for. We can do more, which is why we need the Bill. But my Lords, the need the Bill. But my Lords, the PSFA is already working, so I firmly believe that the normal mechanisms of government can ensure that counter fraud cooperation happens as it is already happening in the work of the current pilot unit in PSFA. of the current pilot unit in PSFA. Also, my Lords, in issues of national importance, there will be some moral and public pressure for some moral and public pressure for something to be done.

So I believe it is not necessary for the Minister to have a director of power in law to have a director of power in law to investigate on their own initiative. My Lords, we truly believe that the collaborative approach outlined in the bill, approach outlined in the bill, combined with the normal operations of government, would ensure the PSFA has the access it needs. The definition of clause of public authority in clause 71 is broad, and this amendment would affect this amendment would affect different public authorities and differently, my Lords, for central government departments, it would government departments, it would mean a minister below Secretary of State level directing and overriding Secretaries of State.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretaries of State. For local authorities. The amendment would be a new power for central government to take over a responsibility without their consent. The Local Government Act 1999 already has powers to this effect, and we do not want to create a new one specifically for fraud. Turning to and turning to the new clause, this is identical amendment. Sorry. Turning to the other agreement, it would require departments to conduct an internal review if, following a PSFA investigation, it is confirmed that they have lost more than £50,000 to overpayment or fraud.

My Lords. All losses on this scale should already be investigated and reported on. There are established audit, assurance and reporting processes for this. In addition, the facts of this case would already have been established by the PSFA and learning taken from it will be shared across government aid. The prevention of fraud. This amendment creates an extra burden on the Department and replicates the work of the PSFA is unnecessary as the core, as its core aim will already be addressed through other activities.

I would therefore encourage noble Lady Baroness King to withdraw her amendments after my very persuasive arguments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank the noble Baroness for
16:21
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
her incredibly persuasive arguments. My Lords, we are clear that this is an unacceptable settlement. If the PSFA could act only if invited by the very body that they have failed. This is that is not a system of scrutiny. It's an invitation to inertia. It cannot be right that officials in a department where fraud is suspected should have the power to decide whether or not to be investigated. The DWP does not wait to be invited before it goes off to benefits, cheats, and there is no reason why public officials should be held to a different standard.

The government is proposing to create an authority with with wide powers on paper, but no real agency in practice. A watchdog told to bark only when asked. In short, it should be called out for what it is a farce. Fraud against the taxpayer is not a matter for polite phone calls between permanent secretaries. It demands action. Statutory, swift, unambiguous. When the credible evidence of fraud arises. That must be the starting gun for any investigation, not the moment the system looks away.

Our amendment gives the PSFA the ability to act proactively with proper safeguards wherever fraud occurs. If we are serious about protecting public money, we cannot design a system that waits to be asked before doing its job. I am not satisfied. I'm afraid that the response from the government meets the conditions set out, and therefore I want to test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment two, standing in my name. The question is that amendment to be agreed to, as many of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say, content. Content contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar. Know, yeah. Know, yeah. Thank Know, yeah. Thank you Know, yeah. Thank you so Know, yeah. Thank you so much. Know, yeah. Thank you so much. I A A well A well done.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just Just the Just the question Just the question is Just the question is that amendment to be agreed to as many of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. That option will say content. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contrary not content the contents go to the right by the thrown the not contents the left by the bar. not contents the left by the bar. Yes. I I not I not that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The laws The laws that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The laws that have The laws that have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The laws that have voted. Contents 200 not contents 190 for the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents have it. No. Not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Not. In clause three. Amendment three. Baroness Finn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Finn. My Lords, I speak in this group. Two amendments three and four tabled in my name and that of my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my name and that of my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie. Lackey. Both concerned the information gathering and sharing powers contained within this bill, and both are designed to ensure that those powers are exercised with fairness, powers are exercised with fairness, clarity and restraint. The First Amendment after clause three would require that any information notice require that any information notice issued to a bank or financial institution includes a clear statement that the person named or statement that the person named or described in that notice is not necessarily guilty of the suspected fraud.

My Lords, this is an important safeguard. As noble Lords will recall, clause three enables investigators to issue information notices to banks where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud. That is a proper and necessary power, which is central to the operation of the bill. And we do, of course, accept that. But it is equally vital that the use of that power does not inadvertently imply culpability on the part of the individual concerned, particularly in the early stages of implementation, when departments and financial institutions are still adjusting to these new processes, there is a real risk that an information notice could be misinterpreted as a formal accusation of wrongdoing.

A simple, clear statement of non culpability within the notice would prevent that risk. It would protect innocent individuals from reputational harm, ensure that they are not subject to de banking or any action from the side of the bank. Ensure transparency in the use of investigatory powers and demonstrate that the government is determined to act fairly as well as firmly in the pursuit of fraud. If this is a small addition, my Lords, but one with significant practical effect, what may seem a technicality in legislation can have a real and tangible effect on people in the real world who will be affected by the words we use and the words we approve.

On the face of this bill, clarity on this question would be a small change for the government, but could avoid risking some serious and damaging circumstances for people outside of this place who have done nothing wrong, but may nevertheless be presumed to have done so without the sort of clarifications we are suggesting. We therefore hope the government will look closely at how such a clarification might be built into the final version of the bill, the Second Amendment after clause five concerns the disclosure of information once it has been gathered.

As the bill stands. Clause five the last minister to disclose information to another person for the purposes of exercising the powers in the bill, but it gives no definition or limitation as to who that other person might be. That, my Lords, is an extraordinarily broad formulation. Our amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to specify by regulations, the persons or categories of persons to whom such information may be disclosed. This would provide a transparent and accountable framework, one that allows for flexibility but still ensures that Parliament has visibility of how and where sensitive data can be shared.

We are not seeking to obstruct the legitimate flow of information between public bodies. On the contrary, we recognise that effective information exchange is essential to combat fraud across the public sector, but we must ensure that these powers are not open ended. We trust the present minister to use them responsibly. But as noble Lords in this House have often reminded us, we are legislating for future ministers and future governments as well, and the safeguards we are building now will protect individuals for years to come.

My Lords, these are not amendments on which we intend to divide the House. We bring them back to ensure that these important issues are not lost as the bill progresses, and that the government meet the challenge they raise, and that appropriate assurances or requirements are provided before the bill leaves this House. Both proposals are constructive. One protects individuals from being unfairly stigmatised when information is sought about them. The other ensures that personal information, once obtained, can only be shared within clear, regulated limits.

Together, they speak to a single principle that strong powers must always be matched by strong safeguards. We therefore hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will take these concerns in that spirit, and consider how best to address them as the Bill moves forward, and we look forward to hearing her response. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment. Proposed clause three, page three, line nine at end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. To briefly add my support to amendment three, which
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:43
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Lady bringing forward these amendments again, and I find myself agreeing with the concerns of the noble Lady. Baroness Finn and other members of your Lordships' House has been outlined, so I will seek to reassure you, all members of your Lordships' House that we are already undertaking this work and the safeguards are in place in respect of amendment three. We will be including specific information in guidance for authorised officers to ensure there are lines included in information notices advising the information holder that it is an ongoing investigation and no inference should be made that the individual specified on the notice is guilty, as was just raised by the noble Baroness Lea G force.

This amendment is therefore not required, as it is already our intent to do this, and it will be achieved in guidance. Turning to amendment four again, I would like to assure the noble Lady and other members of your Lordships' House that I agree with the intention of the amendment, which is why there already safeguards in the bill which restrict the disclosure of information. Clause five details that information can only be disclosed for the purpose of exercising the core functions. This restricts to whom and for what purpose.

The information can be disclosed. However, by also including a prescriptive list of persons who can have access, who can have information disclosed to them, would further restrict the intent of the clause and the effectiveness of the scope of the clause in exercising the core functions detailed in one of the bill. I hope to further reassure your Lordships noble Lords that the PSFA Enforcement Unit would also have memorandums of understanding for each person they would be sharing information with, as well as maintaining a data protection impact assessment to ensure this information is shared and held in adherence to data protection legislation, we have taken every step to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in the disclosure information, while balancing this with making the powers relevant and effective for an investigation.

I hope this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Lady will withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her amendments. My Lords, I am grateful to the Baroness, the Minister, for her
16:45
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness, the Minister, for her response, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his support, and to the noble Lord Lord fo and the noble Baroness Lady Fookes for their support for amendment three. These are, on the face of it, small and technical matters, but they go to the heart of how this bill will operate. In practice, the smallest drafting choices, the subtlest omissions, can have very real consequences for individuals caught up in these processes. We cannot allow the system to treat people as wrongdoers.

When nothing has been proven or concluded. The language of the bill must make that absolutely clear. What may seem a flippant technicality in this chamber can, in the real world, determine whether someone is wrongly stigmatised, denied banking services or placed under suspicion without cause. And that is why these details matter. Because fairness, clarity and restraint are not afterthoughts. They are the foundation of public confidence in the powers this bill creates. So again, I thank the Minister for her engagement, and I hope that as the bill progresses, these small but important safeguards might be reflected in the final

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drafting. And on that note, I beg leave to withdraw. The amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment four not moved. Enclosed seven. Amendment five. Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

King. My Lords, this amendment tabled in my name and that of my Noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. Viscount Younger of Leckie seeks to insert a new clause after clause seven, requiring the Minister to seven, requiring the Minister to publish within six months of Royal Assent statutory guidance setting out the process by which to out the process by which to authorise. Investigators are appointed under this part of the Bill. Clause seven, as it stands, is one of the most powerful provisions in the Bill. It confers unauthorised investigators a suite of powers drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, powers which are Evidence Act 1984, powers which are usually reserved for police officers.

These include the ability to search, to apply for search to search, to apply for search warrants, seize property and access computerised information. These are not trivial powers. They allow the not trivial powers. They allow the state to enter homes and businesses, to seize personal possessions, and to compel the disclosure of data. Yet, as currently drafted, clause seven defines in an unauthorised investigator as and I quote an individual who is authorised by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this section.

It is, in effect, circular. An authorised person is whoever the Minister authorises. There is no clarity, no set of criteria and no publicly available process to explain how these individuals are selected, trained or held accountable. My Lords, if we are to grant powers of this magnitude powers that mirror those of the police, then Parliament and the public are entitled to know who Will willed them and on what basis. The police are subject to detailed recruitment standards, codes of ethics and training requirements, all of which are set out in published documents such as the National Recruitment Standards eligibility criteria for police recruitment and consistent recruitment practices.

Those standards exist for a reason because with greater power comes greater responsibility. We should expect nothing less from the public sector fraud authority or from any civil servants who are to exercise police powers on behalf of the minister. The public will rightly expect the same degree of rigour, impartiality and transparency that they would for a police officer acting under similar authority. This amendment, therefore, asks for something very modest a requirement that the process by which such authorises such authorisations are made be set out in guidance published within six months of this provision coming into force.

That guidance would need to explain who is eligible, how individuals are assessed, what qualifications or training they require, and what oversight mechanisms apply. In doing so, we would provide reassurance both to Parliament and the public that these powers will not be exercised lightly, and that those who will them will be suitably qualified, appropriately vetted and properly accountable. We are, after all, creating a precedent here. These powers will not exist in isolation they could endure for decades, exercised by future officials in future departments.

It is therefore essential that we get the governance right at the outset, and that we put clear expectations on the record and ideally on the face of the bill. My Lords, this is an area where guidance can make a real difference. It would strengthen the operational credibility of the new regime, improve transparency and protect the reputation of the PSFA. It was also provide ministers with a clear framework to defend and justify their appointments in the future. I hope, therefore, that government will look carefully at this proposal and if they cannot accept it today, that they will bring back their own amendment at Third Reading to ensure that the appointment and oversight of authorised investigators meet the same professional standards and ethical safeguards that we rightly demand of our police, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause seven, page five, line 22. At end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. After committee. This was one
16:51
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After committee. This was one area of the bill that I literally had nightmares about. I think there is a really dangerous precedent is a really dangerous precedent being set here. I'm actually rather disappointed that the noble lady Baroness Penn isn't dividing on this, because it is one area where I felt that inadvertently handing over police powers to civil servants could. Completely backfire and cause real serious problems. I was talking recently to a group of people about some of the problems within the police force that know that even though we have vetting, even though we have trained, that there are serious problems of corruption in some instances or misbehaviour well documented, I hardly need rehearse it.

And these officers, police officers are charged with enormous privilege in a way to act on behalf of the state. And therefore we know that even when we have such safeguards in place that people with power can abuse that power, in this instance, this bill, however well-meaning, intends to give similar powers to people who we have no idea what their training will be, whether they will indeed be vetted, what qualifications. And I think, therefore, this amendment is entirely appropriate, is rather modest, but it does at least seek to provide some safeguards for what is happening here, which is the state, or setting up a civilian population to act as police officers.

And to be honest with you, the public don't know about it. And it is shocking. And when you whenever I tell anyone that this came out during committee and then it's contained in the bill was the it was the thing which shocked most people most. So I do hope that again, we can receive reassurances, but not just reassurances that there are concrete responses brought forward by the Minister as to what can be done to ensure that this does not go very badly wrong and backfire.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Clearly it's best if something such as who these
16:53
16:54
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It is essential that any individuals authorised to use the powers enshrined in the police and evidence the Police and Criminal and evidence the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on change for is competent to discharge their duties under the law. We are committed to ensuring this is the case for the authorised investigators created by this bill. However, for legislation to require the publication of guidance on an internal appointment process is not only unnecessary but also inconsistent with established practice in this area across other government departments.

Other government departments with similar investigative powers. For example, HMRC, the Home Office, Defra and even the Food Standards Agency are not required and do not publish statutory guidance on this point. Let me reassure your Lordships' House ministers take their responsibilities seriously. It is for this reason, as we have consistently affirmed, that no investigator will be authorised to exercise these powers until the Minister is entirely satisfied that they possess the requisite training and expertise. This training will cover proficiency in relevant aspects of Pace, particularly the legal framework and applications of section eight and section nine and Pace codes of practice, as far as they apply to the SFA's powers, proper procedures for applying for and lawfully seizing, lawfully executing warrants, including entry, search, seizure and handling digital information, proper handling and retention of and access to evidence.

Crucially, they will be trained in safeguards for individual rights, drawing investigations and warrant execution, and in the proper handling and retention of and access to evidence. Training will be provided by the College of Policing by means of a series of bespoke training courses, the first of which has commenced this week. Individuals will be required to demonstrate proficiency in all relevant facets of Pace before the Minister will authorise them as authorised investigators, with particular emphasis on the legal framework alongside its accompanying codes of practice.

These authorised investigators will also be members of the Government Counter Fraud Profession, and they will be required to meet the appropriate professional standards. Therefore, my Lord, I urge you to I urge you to consider that the existing framework, bolstered by our commitment to rigorous training, already provides necessary assurances and amendments codified. This is unnecessary. I would also like to reassure and remind noble Lords that these powers cannot be exercised in any specific case unless a court has granted a warrant. The ultimate safeguard.

I hope that this explanation reassures noble Lords and that they can therefore withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, we will not be dividing the House on this amendment. And I'm sorry to disappoint the noble
16:57
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness Lady Fox, for whose support I'm very grateful. But we will be looking later in, in the groupings at safeguards on on pace powers granted to civil servants later today. It. The amendment, however, does speak to a very important point, one that we have raised repeatedly throughout the passage of this bill. We are granting serious powers to officials under this legislation, to so-called authorised investigators who will be able to exercise powers, some of which are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

We can never forget that these are not minor administrative tools. They are police level powers to search, seize and compel. And if we are to trust such authority to civil servants, then Parliament and the public deserve full oversight of how those powers are used, and quite simply by whom. That is the question this amendment asks, and it is one that must be answered clearly before this framework is implemented. The process for authorising investigators, the standards they must meet, and the accountability mechanisms that apply are not small matters of drafting detail.

They go to the heart of public confidence in this regime. We appreciate that the Minister can tell us now how this process will work, but some of the formal but some sort of formal, documented statement setting this out would be immensely helpful as a way of us having this beyond the minister's word. Because while I trust the noble Baroness completely, I don't. Thank you. I do not. We do not know if we can always trust her successor or her successor after that. Setting this out allows everyone to know the standards, know the process, and ensure that this is being met not only now, but in the future.

So in short, I am grateful to the Minister, the Baroness, the Minister for noble Baroness, the Minister for her response. But I hope the government will reflect seriously on this issue and possibly come back with something at Third Reading. The powers in clause seven are significant, and so too must be the safeguards that accompanied them. And on that basis, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw the amendment. Is it, Your Lordship, especially the amendment being withdrawn? The the amendment being withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment six I. Notes the government Minister Baroness Meyer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was on my honeymoon last week, which is why our amendments are tabled in the name of amendments are tabled in the name of Baroness Sherlock. And just thinking, this time last week I was in Santorini. I told the noble in Santorini. I told the noble Baroness I'd get it in my. I think I've done awfully well to get to a I've done awfully well to get to a group five. My Lords, a bill about a bill that has recently passed in your Lordships' House and its your Lordships' House and its provisions have a direct impact on how we draft and interpret legislation across government,
17:00
17:01
17:02
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

That if one of us was in Santorini and the other one was here and tabling amendments, I may have got the raw end of the deal,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

got the raw end of the deal, although it's possible the noble Baronesses husband maybe wouldn't agree. With that. But I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I rise. To move a number of government amendments which contain a series of further safeguards for individuals further safeguards for individuals who are subject to the new debt recovery powers in parts one and two of the bill, specifically in relation to direct reduction orders to recover from bank accounts and deduction from earnings orders to deduct from pay salaries. In part one. And before I address them, I want to add my thanks to noble Lords from around the House. What has been a really constructive consideration of the bill so far, and I hope these government amendments will help to add to that, to that sentiment.

But I'll start with government amendments 89, 93 and 94. These amendments seek to clarify the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligations of financial. Institutions. Not to disclose that. They. Have received an information notice under the new power enabling Direct Reduction Orders, or DDOs, under the debt recovery provisions in both parts one and two, financial. Institutions are prohibited from informing account

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prohibited from informing account holders that the PSFA or the DWP have requested account information. This is to militate. Against attempts to avoid the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Against attempts to avoid the powers, for example by moving money out of the account before a DDO is issued. These amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments. Clarify that the prohibition ends three months after the notice is given to the bank, or sooner. If a pre deduction notice is subsequently given, three months is long enough for DWP or the PSFA to have assessed for DWP or the PSFA to have assessed the debtor's ability to repay and the affordability of repayments, and to issue a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First notice. remove. Any. Doubt as to how long the prohibition lasts, ensuring the prohibition lasts, ensuring the requirement is proportionate and not overly burdensome. It is only during the time that account information is being considered that the prohibition applies. Once the information has been properly assessed and any pre deduction

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assessed and any pre deduction notice given to the bank account. Holders can be. Told that the information was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Told that the information was the. Account holder. applicable. Will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Notified in writing by the PSFA or the DWP of their right to make. Representations regarding the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Representations regarding the proposed deductions before any are taken. Government amendments 12.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government amendments 12. 13, 98 and 100 A come in response to our further engagement with the financial services sector. They seek financial services sector. They seek to clarify the responsibilities of the PSFA, DWP and financial the PSFA, DWP and financial institutions with specific regard to legal deputies who might be managing the affairs of a debtor subject to a the affairs of a debtor subject to a DDO. Since committee, we have continued to benefit from the insight provided by the financial services sector, and we want to services sector, and we want to provide as much clarity as possible on respective roles and responsibilities.

So these responsibilities. So these amendments will help ensure that the implementation of these measures is straightforward and the government straightforward and the government can recoup money lost to fraud and error in an efficient and effective manner. Government amendments 12 and manner. Government amendments 12 and 13 simplify the drafting of clause 37 and remove redundant provisions. Amendments 97.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. five. Government amendments 14 and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government amendments 14 and. 99 are consequential to amendments 11 and 96, limiting the suspension of DDOs, which I'll come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suspension of DDOs, which I'll come to in a moment. But my Lords. Government amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

14 and 99 mean that where an order has been suspended for two years and is revoked, the PSFA and years and is revoked, the PSFA and DWP will now have an obligation to inform a deputy if there is one in inform a deputy if there is one in place. Government amendments 15 and 100 create a requirement for a bank 100 create a requirement for a bank to provide the PSFA and DWP of the details of any deputy acting on behalf of an account holder, where these are known to the bank, when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these are known to the bank, when certain notices or orders are issued to them. This was. Implicit before, but at the request of the banks, we're making request of the banks, we're making it explicit that this includes the name and address of the deputy my Lords. Collectively, these Lords. Collectively, these amendments are important to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear for the minority of cases clear for the minority of cases where there is a legal deputy in place. When the PSFA or DWP use

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. When the PSFA or DWP use Amendments. 11, 18. 96 and 99. One of these address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

96 and 99. One of these address an issue raised at Second Reading, but there are lots of noble Lords and I'm happy to be able to respond and I'm happy to be able to respond to those comments here. The government is committed to being fair and transparent in the use of these new powers, and it's these new powers, and it's completely reasonable that where an individual has an order in place and the order is suspended, it should the order is suspended, it should not be suspended indefinitely.

We are there for introducing new Amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11, 18. 96 and 99 to remove that uncertainty for those individuals so uncertainty for those individuals so they know exactly where they stand and to ensure that an order cannot be restarted if the suspension goes be restarted if the suspension goes on for more than two years. And I'd be grateful. I'm grateful to noble Lords for having raised this. It was never the government's intention for never the government's intention for a suspension to be indefinite, but it's right to offer greater clarity and certainty in the law itself.

The PSFA or DWP will inform debtors of any changes to their payment any changes to their payment arrangements. If an order is suspended, the debtor will be notified. In cases where a DDO is revoked, both the account holders and the relevant bank will receive written confirmation from the PSFA written confirmation from the PSFA or DWP. That reflects our continued commitment in supporting individuals in managing their debt, and in managing their debt, and introduces important safeguards to ensure transparency and fairness. Lords turning to the final government amendments in this group, amendments ten and 95, I'd like to thank those in the financial services sector who've worked closely with us in the development of this bill.

We're committed to working collaboratively with the sector to ensure the bill enables banks to meet their legislative obligations while minimising burdens where possible. The cost of meeting obligations under the bill has been an area of interest to the House, and noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates that those helping to enforce the law must be supported, and I agree with them on this. Therefore, these government amendments remove from clause 26 and schedule five the requirements on financial institutions to prevent account holders from closing their accounts upon receipt of a pre deduction notice or DDO from the PSFA or DWP.

The original policy intent was to reduce opportunities for debtors, to frustrate the DDO process and my Lords that remains our objective. However, this requirement would not stop debtors who are persistent in evading repayment from simply redirecting their funds to another account. However, we do know from our engagement with the financial sector that complying with the requirement to prevent account closures risks creating a significant burden for some banks. We reflected on that feedback and the fact that both parts of the bill already contain further safeguards against those bad actors who might wish to take action to frustrate a do so.

In part one, clause 27 places a restriction on the account holder not to do anything that might frustrate the effect of the pre deduction notice or the order. If they do, they become liable to a civil penalty in part two, and schedule six contains provisions for DWP to apply to the court for suspended disqualification or from driving order. In the most serious cases where, for example, someone persistently fails to pay by frustrating a do so my Lords. Removing the requirement for financial institutions to prevent account closure upon receipt of a pre deduction notice or DDO, avoids placing new costly burdens on some banks while still enabling DWP and the PSFA to address effectively the small number of debtors who deliberately and persistently evade repaying taxpayers money.

My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. A member. Proposed clause 19,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member. Proposed clause 19, page 12, line 25. At the beginning,
17:10
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert subject to subsection nine A. My Lords, that's we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that's we. We obviously are pleased to see this, this group of amendments. We understand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand. Quite how far they. Go to meet some of the concerns that. That were.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That were. Expressed by my, my colleague, that Lord Palmer, earlier in the that Lord Palmer, earlier in the process of this bill. I think I have an amendment in a future state which a future. Group which reflects our very deep concern, particularly at the absence of transparency, the very thought that the original legislation essentially meant that people would have no idea that account statements have been handed over, that to the investigators,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when. The. Investigation might. Be active.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be active. But permanently, that kept uninformed that their account uninformed that their account information had been handed over, just felt to us. Complete breach, just felt to us. Complete breach, that of the rights of the individual and also fundamentally breaks the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and also fundamentally breaks the institution. And its account holders. So we will want to look closely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we will want to look closely at these amendments and at their implications. That and may return to this issue at a later stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this issue at a later stage. But obviously, at this point, we're glad. That the government is. Taking steps to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taking steps to. Deal with some of the features that most concerned us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that most concerned us. I just wanted to I expressed considerable concern about this part
17:11
17:13
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
represent a constructive and welcome set of clarifications from the government. They respond directly to a number of issues raised at committee about transparency, fairness and proportionality in the way these powers are exercised. First, on the government's amendments limiting the period during which a bank is prohibited from informing an account holder that it has received an information notice. We on these benches see this as a largely sensible change. The amendment means that after three months or sooner, if a further notice is received under section 21, the prohibition on informing the account holder will lapse.

That is an improvement. It ensures that investigations cannot drift indefinitely in silence while still protecting the integrity of life. Inquiries. We would, however, welcome confirmation from the noble Baroness, the Minister, that when no action has been taken within that period, the Department considers the case effectively closed or dormant. If a person is made aware that an information notice has been issued in respect to their account, and they were in fact involved in some sort of fraud, being made aware of this fact would compromise an investigation if it was ongoing, as that person could take action to avoid scrutiny.

If the noble Baroness. The Minister could therefore clarify for us that after this three month period, a live investigation would not be effected through the sharing of this information and we are content with this proposal. Turning to the government's amendments, removing the requirement for banks to prevent an account being closed outright where a deduction order has been made, this amendment achieves the same policy outcome as the as the original drafting, ensuring that sufficient funds remain available for recovery, but it does so in a more proportionate and administratively practical way.

The Bank will still have to preserve the specified sum, but without being forced into the position of acting as an involuntary custodian for the rest of the customer's affairs. That strikes the right balance between protecting public money and minimising unnecessary interference in personal banking arrangements. We warmly welcome the amendment addressing suspended direct reduction orders. This is one that we press strongly in committee, and we are very pleased that the government has responded and taken us up on our suggestion, which was also supported by many other noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Charles Hill and the noble Baroness noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley.

As drafted originally, the bill would have allowed, under order, to be suspended indefinitely, potentially leaving someone in limbo for years, uncertain whether it would ever be reactivated. That was clearly unsatisfactory. The new provision rightly ensures that if an order has been suspended for more than two years, it must be treated as revoked and all relevant parties notified. That is a fair and proportionate solution that restores clarity and finality for the individual concerned. Finally, the group includes an amendment requiring banks to provide the Minister with the details of any deputy acting on behalf of an account holder.

When a relevant notice or order is issued on its face, that is a sensible and practical improvement, ensuring that where someone is represented, for example, because they lack capacity or are otherwise vulnerable, the department has the information needed to communicate with their deputy directly. However, this also highlights a wider point where a deputy is in place. There is almost always a reason a person may be unwell, may lack capacity or may simply be unable to manage their own affairs. Financial affairs.

It is therefore crucial that the department's process is recognised and respect those circumstances. Contacting the deputy is not enough in itself. The system must also be sensitive to the reasons why the deputy exists, and must handle such cases with the care and discretion they require. My Lords, overall, we do not oppose these amendments. Indeed, we welcome them. They make the Bill clearer, fairer and more workable. But they also remind us of an essential principle that runs through the entire bill that was strong.

Investigatory and recovery powers must come equally strong. Safeguards, transparency, proportionality and compassion must sit alongside efficiency, and we are therefore very grateful to ministers for having listened to the points raised across the House in Committee and for responding constructively. These amendments make genuine improvements, and we hope that our other amendments will be treated in the same spirit of balance and care

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as the bill proceeds here. At my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Finn for that constructive response and to other noble Lords for giving us the benefit of the doubt here. To my friend Lord Davis and the government. Amendments I can assure them, were tabled a week ago, as is the requirement for government the requirement for government amendments. And they have been, if it gives them any encouragement seen by UK finance who welcomed them. And
17:17
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock (Labour)
-
-
by UK finance who welcomed them. And we were seeking to respond to concerns that were raised just to pick up a couple of points made by noble Lords in response to the noble Baroness Lady Creamer. But talking here specifically about action in relation to recovering of debt from debtors. And just I want to reassure the House that that this does not mean a DWP debtor will not be aware. Action might be taken. Clause 91 of the Bill requires the debtor to be told in advance in writing, that bank statements may be obtained without further warning, to assess whether money can be taken directly from their bank account via a DDO if they don't come into contact.

DWP to discuss repayment in response to other queries. Just to say that the this these measures do not stop a bank telling a debtor if no action is proposed. It's also the case and it is our view in response to Lady Finn, that we believe three months is enough notice for DWP and PSFA to reach a conclusion. Either that we issue a prediction notice or a or a DDO, or if we need it, and we believe that that is that is sufficient, which is why that that, that, that figure, that number is there.

I think somebody and I'm afraid, have already forgotten who don't be my age. Asked if an order has been suspended for two years, what happens and it cannot be restarted as the answer, it will be legally revoked where appropriate. The process can be started again from the beginning for direct reduction orders. That would mean fresh bank statements had to be obtained to carry out a current affordability assessment, rather than relying on ones from from the beginning, and all relevant correspondence would have to be sent out again, where a suspended order is subsequently revoked by DWP or PSFA, a notice will be sent to the debtor and any other relevant parties informing them that this has this has happened.

If an order were revoked and DWP or PSFA is no longer pursuing an action. In the case of a DDO, DWP or PSFA will notify the account holders and the bank in writing, setting out that the order had been revoked. Debtors will also be told if their order has been suspended and an equivalent process applies. PSFA in respect of deduction from earnings orders. In terms of the point about the really important point made by the noble Lady Baroness Finn about about having about deputies being in place, of course.

I mean, that is absolutely right. And I can reassure her that DWP has clear processes for vulnerability, for flagging vulnerability and making sure that's taken into account. But obviously, in a sense, once the debtor is in place, the debtor has the obligations. That would be the I'm sorry, the deputy has the obligations that would originally have been there for the debt. And so it has to be pursued in the appropriate way. My Lords I hope that's answered the questions noble Lords have raised. And again, I hope it shows the government's willingness to engage and, and to be constructive in amending the bill where possible.

So I hope those clarifications happen and I will reassure noble Lords that the protections in the bill operate as intended, and that will work effectively with our banking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

partners. As such, I hope noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move you. The noble Baroness would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness would like to move for a member. Question is that amendment eight be agreed to? As amendment eight be agreed to? As many as of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content 'content' the contrary not content the contents have it. Amendments 9 to 15 move formally en bloc. The to 15 move formally en bloc. The question is that amendments nine to fifteen en bloc be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, as are of that opinion say, "content" the contrary not content the contents have it in clause 38, the contents have it in clause 38, amendment 16.

The ban is Finn.
17:21
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the amendments in this group focus on one central theme ensuring proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability in transparency and accountability in how the powers granted under this bill are exercised. These amendments are about ensuring that as we build a powerful new framework for tackling public sector fraud, we also build in the right checks, balances and reporting duties not only for ministers but for the departments, banks and public bodies that will have to deliver this regime day to day.

The first of these amendments to clause 38 would require that the outcome of any consultations held before making regulations on deduction orders be laid before Parliament. Before these these regulations come into force. That is a reasonable step. Clause 38 already obliges ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate. But as things stand, there is no requirement to publish the results or explain how the government has responded to the views expressed. This amendment simply ensures that Parliament can see the evidence and feedback underpinning any regulatory change.

Banks and financial institutions will be at the forefront of implementing these powers. Their experience and Operation Insight will be vital. Parliament should therefore be able to see what those institutions have said, what works, what doesn't, and what the likely impact of proposed changes will be before new rules take effect. Alongside that sits our amendment requiring that any future regulations under clause 38 be months of those of these provisions coming into force, to conduct a review of the administrative and compliance costs imposed on the banks by this bill, including staffing, reporting and opportunity costs.

This, our Lords, is about fairness and about being realistic. We are asking the financial services sector to play a major operational role in this new system, to respond to information notices, processed reduction orders and help recover public funds that is legitimate for the purposes of the bill on which no. All noble Lords broadly agree, but it comes with a cost. Parliament has a right to know what that cost is and whether it is being managed proportionately and effectively, then at a higher level of oversight.

Our next two amendments was introduced annual reporting requirements. The first would require the Minister to publish an annual report on the use of the powers conferred under part one of the Bill, setting out how often they have been used, in what context and with what results. This is about shining a light on the operation of the regime itself, how these new powers are working in practice, how effective they are in recovering public money, and how proportionately they are being exercised. The second would require an annual report on the overall extent of public sector fraud.

The single authoritative assessment of the scale and nature of the problem across government, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and indeed the government themselves, have all acknowledged that the current picture is fragmented and inconsistent. Without reliable data, it is impossible to design effective policy, measure progress or target resources where they are most needed. An annual report would help close that gap, improve accountability, and ensure that both Parliament and the public can see whether we are making headway against the problem.

My Lords none of none of these proposals is designed to delay or frustrate the Bill. We are not seeking to divide the House on these amendments. What we are seeking is assurance that the government recognises the importance of these issues, that the machinery of this bill will operate transparently, that Parliament will be kept informed, and that those upon whom these duties fall will be treated fairly and proportionately. They are therefore constructive and common sense measures. They strengthen parliamentary oversight, improve the evidence base for future policy, and help ensure that the strong powers created by this bill are matched by equally strong safeguards and accountability.

I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness the Minister, will reflect on these proposals in that spirit and that as the Bill proceeds, the government will bring forward their own commitments to embed these principles of transparency, consultation and reporting in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way these powers are used. I beg to move. The member proposed clause 38,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member proposed clause 38, page 23, line 28, and insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 23, line 28, and insert the list. I am taking the opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am taking the opportunity already to reiterate my concerns that I expressed about parts of this
17:26
17:27
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm generally supportive of all the amendments in this group, but particularly to this group, but particularly to amendments 17 and 22. This bill, and this part of the bill impose a range of onerous obligations on the banks and other financial institutions that are affected by it and that have to respond to information,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notices and so on. But nowhere does the bill provide for how. The costs that arise from those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The costs that arise from those obligations should be dealt with, or how to ensure that they are proportionate. Amendments 17 and 22 proportionate. Amendments 17 and 22 simply add an important level of review and transparency, which will allow us to ensure that the costs allow us to ensure that the costs being imposed on those institutions are reasonable and proportionate. The very fact of the requirement to The very fact of the requirement to prepare impact assessments and to review the costs of compliance should of itself ensure that these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should of itself ensure that these costs are kept at the forefront of the government's mind when using. These powers. And therefore, I hope the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And therefore, I hope the noble Lady will accept amendments 17 and 22, amendment 26. I absolutely support the concept. I'm just slightly confused as to whether it's not already covered by clause 65, not already covered by clause 65, but I support the principle. My but I support the principle. My Lords, these these amendments, there's five of them. The number 16, which ensures the outcome of consultations required by section 38
17:29
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
consultations required by section 38 six is laid by Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations. And amendment 70 is a new clause that ensures the charges the changes to the means through which deduction orders are processed, accompanied by an impact assessment, and an amendment 22, which has received some support. This amendment would require the Minister to undertake yet another review of the costs banks are being imposed upon by part one within 12 months of the new section coming into effect.

Baron and amendment 26 is another new clause requiring the Minister to publish an annual report on the use

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of powers conferred by part one of the. Bill. Which must then be laid before Parliament, and finally amendment 112, a new clause which will require the Minister to publish an annual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister to publish an annual report on the estimated scale of fraud against public authorities. Much must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again be laid before Parliament. This is going to be a pretty hefty tome of things going to be laid tome of things going to be laid before Parliament. I mean, it's going to be a book or a book all of itself. And whereas the benches welcome measures that increase clarity and accountability, we do feel it is it necessary to prescribe additional reporting mechanisms beyond those already established. beyond those already established. Our focus has been to ensuring that existing processes are effectively implemented.

I don't think they implemented. I don't think they always are, and that's what they've got to be done. And they and they've got to be accessible. And rather got to be accessible. And rather than imposing formal obligations which may not meaningful, enhance which may not meaningful, enhance anything. So I, I understand the thrust of, of these bills, but thrust of, of these bills, but they're going to produce a tome of, of regulations with a line of civil servants to deal with it, to provide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no meaningful improvements. I thank the noble Baroness for
17:31
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for raising the important issues around annual reporting of the PSFA, for both the use of powers conferred on both the use of powers conferred on them within the Bill, and the extent of fraud against public authorities, as well as her point on the implementation of direct orders, particularly concerning the regulations and publication of consultation outcomes, and also the impact these powers may have on the banking industry. Whilst I agree with the intent behind these amendments, they are important, unfortunate, unfortunately, duplicative, or would have otherwise or would otherwise create an unnecessary burden for the PSFA.

I will therefore address each in turn, starting with amendment 16. This requires that the outcome of any consultation required by regulation making powers for direct deduction orders in clause 38 is laid before Parliament. Prior to the implementation of regulations. This amendment is duplicative where a consultation is required. The explanatory memoranda of the relevant statutory instrument must detail and consider the outcome of that consultation exercise. Furthermore, the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles also sets out that where a consultation concerns a statutory instrument, His Majesty's Government should publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid.

My Lords. We completely agree with noble Lady, which is why the provisions are there. I now turn to the amendment 17, which seeks to hold PSFA to commit to an impact assessment covering projected costs and effects on the operational capacity of banks should any changes be made to the means in which reduction orders are processed by way of regulation, as set out in clause 38, this amendment is also duplicative of statutory instruments required for the impact on the relevant sector is considered, and set out in the explanatory memoranda, even if, that is to say, no impact is expected with reasons given as to why where the impact is expected to exceed £10 million, a full and separate impact assessment must be prepared and published alongside the CI.

The government is extremely mindful of the burdens this bill places on businesses, including the banking sector. We, too want to ensure that they are not subjected to disproportionate burden or costs in complying with these measures, and we want to ensure to assure you that the PSFA are working on how to effectively operationalise the recovery powers in partnership with representatives of the banking sector. Throughout the development of this bill, we have tried to stretch a fair strike the right balance between requiring actions from banks in a fair and proportionate way, whilst achieving our policy intent of recouping vital public funds lost to fraud and error.

That is why there has been sustained engagement with key representatives of the sector, including UK finance, individual banks, building societies, His Majesty's Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority. We know that the Secretary is supportive of the Bill's objectives from the evidence provided by UK finance during the committee stage. In the other place, and we have benefited from the sector's operational insights and as just discussed in the previous group, we have tabled a number of amendments as a direct result to ease the implementation and delivery of the recovery powers.

Turning to amendment 22, requiring PSFA to undertake a review after 12 months on the cost to banks of complying with provisions under part one of the Bill. My Lords, the Bill's published impact assessment, which sets out all expected costs to business, including banks, for the PSFA measures. This has been green rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee and sets out the minimum expected cost to businesses where it has been possible to do so, including to banks. For part one of the bill's measures. Provisions already exist under clause 24 for banks to be able to deduct administrative costs, which would offset what the review would report on.

This amendment would create disproportionate administrative burden on the PSFA, when, candidly, it should be using its resource to propose to those who defraud the public purse. Amendment 26 requires a report on the power on the use of powers by the PSFA to be published and made in Parliament. I know the noble Lady genuinely cares about ministerial oversight and accountability of officers using these new powers. I want to assure her that in addition to the reports that will be commissioned from Inspectorates, such as His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, the independent person appointed in line with rule 65 will proactively review PSFA investigative use of the powers, including their efficiency and effectiveness.

We have previously stated that these would be annual reports and they will be laid before Parliament. Lastly, turning to 112 on annual reporting. This would require the PSFA to publish and lay in Parliament an annual report on the extent of fraud against public authorities, based on the government's internal estimates. My. The PSFA already oversee the counter fraud performance of ministerial departments and public bodies, and already publish a report on the extent of fraud against public authorities through their fraud landscape reports.

These set out levels of detected, prevented and recovered fraud and error as reported by departments and public bodies to the Government Counter Fraud Function Centre of Expertise for transparency. These are now published online. We expect the next one to be published before the end of the financial year, and commit, and can commit to sharing this with members who have spoken in this debate. My Lord, I think I have touched on all of the points raised, although there was a question of which a different from the noble lady Baroness Finn in terms of other safeguards.

So I think it may be helpful to reassure your Lordships' House that we have the following additional safeguards in place. Authorised officers and investigators will be trained extensively and will only be permitted to use the powers once the training has been completed, and will follow detailed procedures and have strong guidance, for instance, on how to assess and handle potentially vulnerable suspects. There will be rights to make representations, request internal review and appeal decisions through tier through first tier and upper tier tribunals across the civil penalty, debt recovery and information gathering powers.

And in addition to this, we will consult on and publish a code of practice detailing the calculation and application of penalties issue where fraud is found and where non-compliance occurs with the information sharing and gathering requirements and debt recovery powers within the bill. My Lords, I hope that reassures both your Lordships' House and the noble Lady that we are already taking steps to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achieve the same aim and she can therefore withdraw her amendments. Yeah, yeah.
17:37
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Minister for her remarks Baroness Minister for her remarks and I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Davis, Brixton and Lord Vaux for their support for some of their amendments. And, and I thank the noble Baroness for the consideration she has given as well. At the heart of this debate is a simple but important point. If we are to make the system work, we have to work with the banks, not simply through them.

They are in fact being recruited as operational arms of the state, helping to investigate, enforce and recover public money. That partnerships brings. That partnership brings responsibilities on both sides. These amendments were never about creating obstacles. They were about ensuring that transparency, consultation and accountability are built into the process. The banks are being asked to play a vital role, and we must show that them that their experience, their concerns and their costs will be reflected in how the government engage with and implement this bill.

I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments. Is it your Lordship's pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 17. Baroness Finn not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Amendment 18 Baroness Sherlock moved. Formally. The question is that amendment eighteen question is that amendment eighteen be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, "content" the contrary. Not content. The contents have it. Not content. The contents have it. Amendment 19 the Baroness Finn move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally not moved. Not moved. Amendment in clause after moved. Amendment in clause after clause 64, amendment 20 Baroness clause 64, amendment 20 Baroness Kramer not moved. Amendment 21

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Finn. My Lords, this amendment tabled in my name and that of my Noble in my name and that of my Noble friend Viscount Black of Lecce, seeks to and certain new powers establishing a clear fraud risk establishing a clear fraud risk management duties for all public authorities that oversee major spending programmes, that is, those spending programmes, that is, those involving annual disbursements exceeding £100 million. The purpose exceeding £100 million. The purpose of this amendment is straightforward but fundamental.

It is to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority does not become, as it very easily could, an external body to which departments can simply outsource responsibility for managing fraud risk, rather than taking ownership of it themselves. We have heard a great deal rightly about the scale of public sector fraud and the cost to the taxpayer. But as we look to the future, the real question is not simply how the PSFA will investigate or recover those losses. It is how we build a culture of counter fraud across the public sector, one in which every department, every agency and every accounting officer takes personal and institutional responsibility for preventing fraud.

At source. This amendment aims to do exactly that. It would require all public authorities responsible for large spending schemes, those worth more than £100 billion a year to register those schemes with the PSFA to conduct fraud risk assessments and to prepare prepare annual fraud measurement plans. Those plans would have to use robust, statistically valid methods to estimate fraud and error rates such as representative sampling or equivalent techniques. The PSFA would then independently verify those reported figures published an annual report comparing departmental assessed self-assessments within with its own verified data, and assign each authority a red amber green rating to reflect the adequacy of its fraud management arrangements.

Those ratings and the underlying data would be published both in each department's annual accounts and in the SFA's report to Parliament. Finally, whether there are significant discrepancies or failings, the PSFA would have the power to require the relevant authorities to submit an action plan within 30 days, setting out how it will correct the deficiencies. Compliance with these duties would then be subject by to audit by the Comptroller and Audit Auditor General, bringing this entire framework within the scrutiny of Parliament. My Lords, this is a serious proposal and one that goes to the heart of what we have been saying throughout the passage of this bill.

Fraud is not a problem that can be solved by a single agency, however capable. It must be the business of the entire public sector. We cannot allow a situation to develop where departments and public bodies come to see the PSFA as an external safety net, somewhere to which they can pass the buck. If when something goes wrong, if we're not careful, that is precisely what will happen. Officials will say fraud. Well, that's the PSFA PSFA job. Minister will reassure Parliament that the PSFA is on the case.

And in the meantime, the very culture of accountability we're trying to build will start to erode. So this amendment reverses that logic. It makes counter fraud a statutory discipline, something that must be embedded, measured and reported on within each department and public authority. It gives the Minister for the Cabinet Office the information and the oversight they need to see at a glance where problems lie across government, and it allows Parliament, through the Comptroller and Auditor General, to see how public money is being protected and where it is being put at risk.

In short, it ensures that no official, no permanent secretary and no department can hide behind the PSFA. It places responsibility exactly where it belongs on those who spend and manage public money. And my Lords, this approach also has a longer term benefit if departments develop and strengthen their own internal counter fraud capability, the need for PSFA intervention should gradually decline. That is what success should look like, not a PSFA burdened with fire, fighting every scandal across government, but a public sector that has learned, embedded and internalised the discipline of fraud prevention.

That is the culture shift we need. It is how we stop treating counter fraud as an emergency response and start treating it as an essential part of good public administration, this administration, this amendment, gives practical effect to that ambition. It gives the PSFA oversight, the minister, visibility and Parliament the means to scrutinise what is being done and what is not being done across the system. If the government is serious about tackling fraud at scale, then this is how they can demonstrate it, not by concentrating power in one central authority, but by building a resilient, accountable and transparent network of fraud management across the public sector.

It does not just stress that amendment does not just strengthen the bill, it strengthens government itself. It embeds responsibility, responsibility where it belongs and ensures that accountability, transparency and cultural change go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hand in hand. I beg to move. A member proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member proposed after clause 64, insert the new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. Very briefly. One of the reasons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly. One of the reasons that I support the intention of this bill is because I've become bill is because I've become concerned that major fraud of public money is has gone on challenge for money is has gone on challenge for too long. One of my worries about the bill is when the bill goes after the bill is when the bill goes after low hanging fruit, which is much more in relation to people on benefits, and we will discuss that benefits, and we will discuss that at the next report stage.

This
17:45
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
at the next report stage. This amendment does seem to me to be prepared to challenge what I think has become a complacency about public money and waste, and seeks to find a mechanism to ensure that it does not become yet another tick box in bureaucratic exercise. So whilst I'm worried about even more bureaucracy, I do think that the intention of this amendment is serious and does actually give the rightful focus of what we should be worried, which is where people in public life have become utterly negligent of the public's money, of the taxpayers money, and have felt that they will not be penalised.

So I am happy to go along with this, because I too worry that PSFA will simply be a box ticking exercise otherwise, or it will be somewhere where these matters will not be fully accountable and discussed to the public. So I will support this amendment should it be pushed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further. But like my Lords, I really found

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But like my Lords, I really found it difficult to believe this was being required of us to today. This this. If one reads amendment 21, this. If one reads amendment 21, which which requires each public authorities reported fraud rates annually, employing rigorous audit sampling or comparable statistically sampling or comparable statistically robust methods. I mean, this is you know, this is assuming that the local public authorities are not local public authorities are not running any systems whatsoever themselves.

I mean, the whole principle of government is that you principle of government is that you don't do everything centrally from central government, but you do pass some things down to the to the some things down to the to the individual public authorities. I served for many years as the served for many years as the chairman of audit committee of the London Borough of Barnet. We London Borough of Barnet. We rigorously looked, as do I, Belgium. Virtually all public authorities. Virtually all public authorities.

The spending proposals and when and when this says that the public authority must register each relevant, relevant spending scheme or programme at the start of each financial year. Well, in fact, when you think that it's meant to be those exceeding £100 million annually, most schemes from public authorities, the actual amount of the scheme think of think of the new the scheme think of think of the new railways and you. The figures never stack up by the time you get to the end.

Of that programme. So the idea end. Of that programme. So the idea of having at the beginning of the programme to identify you will find programme to identify you will find there will be numerous exceptions to those programmes. This amendment doesn't hold water and also it takes away from all the public away from all the public authorities, the authority and the and the vigilance that they meant to assume themselves. And, and we assume themselves. And, and we cannot support these amendments, this amendment.

this amendment.
17:48
17:48
17:48
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
spending programmes and for controls, well, in the first place is the most important tool we have. is the most important tool we have. I would like to set out the work the PSFA already does to hold public authorities to account for their fraud, risk management performance, fraud, risk management performance, and set out some ways we can go further. I hope in doing so, to further. I hope in doing so, to convince the noble Lady that her amendment is not necessary. It is already a requirement for major new already a requirement for major new areas of public spending to have a fraud risk assessment.

This is set fraud risk assessment. This is set out about in both managing public money, which tells accounting officers their duties, and the officers their duties, and the Treasury's Green Book, which details how to appraise a project. The PSFA scrutinises those fraud risk assessments, holding departments to account for both the absence of risk assessment and for fraud risk assessments that do not meet the standard. 31 organisations have so standard. 31 organisations have so far been through the PSFA rigorous, rigorous assurance regime.

The highest risk government schemes highest risk government schemes receive additional scrutiny of their fraud risk management practices on a regular, ongoing basis. The highest risk here is not justified with reference to the size of spending, although that is important, but also the scale of fraud risks at a programme faces. This is in addition to the PSFA is broader scrutiny of departmental performance and capability. The PSFA assesses and hold public bodies to account for their compliance with the Counter Fraud functional standards.

The make up of their counter fraud workforce and level of investment. The ambition and performance against their impact targets, and their ability to collect and report to the PSFA on all frauds against them. The PSFA publishes the Fraud Landscape reports. These outline the main risks and issues across government, including the levels of detected fraud and corruption, and associated area in departments and public bodies, excluding tax and welfare. As these are published elsewhere. But publishing fraud risk assessments as this amendment calls for would be providing a how to guide for fraudsters.

The PSFA works closely with the National Audit Office, who can, as they choose, offer independent scrutiny and have done so in reports such as using data and analytics to tackle fraud and error in July of this year, and the impact of fraud and error on Public funds 2023 to 24 in November last year. In short, much of what the noble Lady calls for in this amendment is already happening. But she is quite right, as this is fundamentally a question of protecting taxpayers money. And we can go further.

So we are first. Forum measurement is most sophisticated in HMRC and DWP, where detailed audits and sampling are possible and proportionate in other areas of government, effective fraud measurement is typically prohibitively expensive. Fraud is a hidden crime. But the noble Lady is right that we need to do more here. So the PSFA is now pressing for a fraud measurement plan to be put in place for the highest risk schemes across government, and we will make those highest risk schemes report to the PSFA their levels of fraud and error.

This will include what has been estimated, detected, recovered and prevented. We are now also asking the highest risk schemes to report on levels of counter fraud resourcing, so we can assure that resourcing matches the threat. Secondly, accountability is critical. The PSFA will redouble its efforts to hold departments to account for substandard fraud risk management, where fraud risk assessments are of poor quality, where departments are falling behind on the counter fraud standards, or where counter fraud workforces are insufficient or made up of the wrong skills.

Cabinet office ministers and their departmental counterparts will ensure accountability and drive improvement. The action Honourable lady calls for is therefore already underway, or is something we recognise as a gap and are taking action on. But she is white to call for action, but the appropriate place to pursue this action is not actually in this legislation, but is through the SFA's published mandate, which we will look again in light of the noble Ladies points to check it is fit for purpose, and I would welcome a discussion with the noble Lady with my officials on what changes to our published mandate will achieve.

Her goals, as well as the invitation will also obviously be open to all noble Lords who have an interest. My Lords. We are trying to make sure that the fraud, that the counter fraud landscape is fit for purpose across departments and are both listening to the comments of your Lordships' House as well as progressing with the Bill. I therefore hope that that provides reassurance to your Lordships' House and specifically the noble Lady, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she can withdraw her amendments. By both. Close interest.
17:53
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Close interest. To the noble. Lady, the Minister response. And it seems to me to be crystallised in a few words, which is Baroness Finn is absolutely correct. Her amendment is on the bottom. However, officials in the Cabinet Office regard it as just simply too much work to implement it. Can we please not have this actually on the face of the bill, but can we have some sort of arrangement, some side deal or side letter to address it? Now, when we're dealing with sums of public money as significant as those acknowledged in the legislation, surely it would be better to accept the amendment because the noble Lady the Minister noble Baroness the Minister has acknowledged that it's spot on.

There's not a single element in the logic put forward by the opposition front bench with which she takes issue. The only possible objection she raised is that an assessment, a public assessment of fraud risk, would be a how to guide for fraudsters. Surely the fraudsters don't need support. It's other departments that need support in dealing with this issue. And if she cannot accept the logic and power of the amendment, will she commit within 6 or 12 months to come back to the House and to report if it is the case that the proposal that she puts forward is inadequate, that she will accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Baroness Finn, because, as is clear from the paucity of the arguments provided for her by her officials, there is no gainsaying.

The force case.
17:55
17:56
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her remarks and for the careful consideration that she has given to this issue. I am really disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has decided that he can he can no longer support the amendment because he thought he warmly welcomed a similar amendment at committee, describing it as a comprehensive and rigorous approach to fraud risk management for public authorities, overseeing significant spending schemes. At its core, my Lords, this amendment is about building a culture of responsibility and transparency across government, one in which fraud prevention is owned by every department and every accounting officer, not simply outsourced to the PSFA.

We cannot afford a system where the authority becomes a convenient safety net, where departments step back from the task of managing their own risk. As we said at committee stage, let us return to first principles. Public money must be protected, not just recovered after it is lost. This must be a whole of government effort driven by evidence, accountability and openness. Departments need to know how they are performing and Parliament needs to be able to see it. That means regular comparable data published, verified and available for scrutiny by both houses.

Where we appreciate the noble Baroness of the Minister's response and the spirit in which it was given. But I agree entirely with my noble friend, Lord Gove, that we do not repeat believe that the reporting requirements set out in her answer are adequate. We need to see real movement on how these efforts are assessed, which departments are performing well, which are falling behind, and how that performance is being improved. This information must be made public and open for review, and we know that this can be done without compromising ongoing investigations, transparency and accountability are not threats to enforcement.

They are its foundation. My Lord. This amendment, as I say, goes to the very heart of what this bill should be about creating a genuine culture of responsibility across the public sector when it comes to tackling fraud. For too long, fraud management has been treated as a technical or procedural exercise buried within internal reporting chains and obscured by bureaucratic complexity. The effect has been that too many departments and agencies see fraud as someone else's problem, something to be passed up to the centre or delegated down to a third party, such as third party bodies such as the PSFA.

But the fight against fraud cannot be subcontracted. It has to begin and end with the public authorities themselves, who are entrusted with billions, billions of pounds of taxpayers money. Our amendment seeks to ensure that accountability is clear, transparent and public. It requires departments not merely to report internally, but to publish their own risk assessments, to have their fraud rates independently verified, and to be held publicly to account for their performance. In the long run, the success of the PSFA should not be measured by how much it does, but by how little it needs to do, because public authorities have to develop the systems, culture and leadership to manage fraud effectively themselves.

Yet, as this bill stands, that is not the direction of travel. This amendment is therefore essential to shift the incentives away from centralised dependency and towards departmental ownership, transparency and responsibility. I am extremely grateful for the offer of further discussions from the Minister. But how? This is a matter of principle and of effectiveness. We cannot have great power, as the government is proposing, without great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility, and I therefore wish this. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to as many as our. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content. Contains the country, not content. Not. In fact. The question will be decided by a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House
18:00
None Portrait Division
-

division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open very quickly. Clear the bar. Know. Know. Yes, Know. Yes, yes. This. No 10/10.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will go to the right by the throne and. Not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We. The The best. Yes, Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. That's Yes, yes. Yes. That's right. To To of. To of. Six To of. Six six. I I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stand Stand is Stand is my Stand is my Lords Stand is my Lords that. Stand is my Lords that. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stand is my Lords that. Amendment 21 be agreed to. This. My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 139, not contents 186. So the not contents have it. contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. I. Am.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 22. Baroness Penn not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Penn not moved. Amendment 23 Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I shall now turn to government amendments 23, 24, 68 and 69 regarding the disclosure of 69 regarding the disclosure of information to the independent reviewers. These amendments rightly respond to the challenge put forward respond to the challenge put forward in committee by the noble by noble Lords, including Lord Vaux and noble Ladies, Baroness Finn and Baroness Ladies, Baroness Finn and Baroness Creamer, to provide all relevant information to independent reviewers. And I am pleased to make reviewers. And I am pleased to make these amendments today to demonstrate this government's commitment to supporting the independent reviewers in the PSFA independent reviewers in the PSFA and DWP carry out robust and transparent reviews.

On the PSFA side, government amendments 23 and 24 will oblige the Minister to
18:12
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
disclose all reasonable information to independent reviewers appointed under clause 65 for the purposes of carrying out the review, the independent reviewer will determine what information is reasonably required with regard to the DWP. At committee stage, Baroness Sherlock committee stage, Baroness Sherlock made clear that the DWP Secretary of State will provide the independent review of eligibility verification review of eligibility verification measures with all relevant material so they can carry out their review. But recognising the underlying But recognising the underlying concern and to clarify our intent, we are also today bringing forward government amendments 68 and 69, government amendments 68 and 69, which oblige the Secretary of State to disclose necessary information to the Independent Reviewer of EVM for the Independent Reviewer of EVM for the purposes of carrying out the review.

To be clear for both sets of review. To be clear for both sets of amendments. Substituting the word must for the word may does not signal a change in our approach. The government has always been committed to providing all relevant information that is reasonably information that is reasonably required to the respective independent reviewers to support open and transparent use of powers open and transparent use of powers and to promote accountability. But these amendments today reinforce that commitment and make it crystal that commitment and make it crystal clear.

I hope that these amendments reassure your Lordships' House that the government will provide all relevant information to the independent reviewers, and I encourage noble Lords to back these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments, I better move amendment. Propose clause 66, page 35, line

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Propose clause 66, page 35, line 29. Leave out May and insert must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

29. Leave out May and insert must. We have a lot of discussions. In this House about the difference between May and must? I think in this case it's really very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this case it's really very important. It is really essential that the independent reviewers, which is. Such an. Important safeguard throughout
18:13
18:15
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Baroness Lady Sherlock. And they reflect the very same concerns that we raised in committee about the scope and strength of the independent review of mechanisms provided for in the Bill, specifically, the ability of those reviewers to request and be granted access to the information they need in order to do their job properly. We are grateful that the government has recognised this point in relation to the Cabinet Office section of the Bill. There will be amendment before us to clause 66 ensures that where information is reasonably required for the purposes of an independent review review under clause 65, the Minister must provide it rather than may.

That is a critical distinction, as the noble Lord Lord Vaux has pointed out, a reviewer cannot be independent or effective if their access to information is discretionary, subject to the goodwill or convenience of the department being reviewed. We are also pleased to note that the government has extended this same principle to the later amendment, and to the later amendment, clause 76. Together, these changes marked a real step change step forward in strengthening the independence, credibility, and accountability of the review process, and we are pleased that our efforts to achieve this have been rewarded.

However, what remains missing is the same change in relation to clause 89. That provision deals with the independent Review mechanism for reviews of the exercise of the Secretary of State's investigative functions under sections 198 to 109 of the Social Security Administration Act, 1992 and schedule 3ZD. In other words, the sharpened powers exercised by DWP investigators the ability to enter premises, conduct inspections, question individuals and require the production of documents. It is precisely in that context where intrusive powers are being exercised against citizens, that the independent reviewer of most needs to be both empowered and fully informed.

Yet under the bill as drafted, the reviewers access to information there remains subject to ministerial discretion. So we have, as things stand, a rather odd and unsatisfying unsatisfactory in balance. The Cabinet Office's independent reviewer, looking at fraud and error centrally, will be empowered and properly supported. The DWP reviewer overseeing eligibility verification will likewise have strengthened access to information. But when it comes to the part of the bill that governs the actual use of powers on the ground, entering properties, questioning people, exercising the state's most coercive functions, the reviewer is left weak, dependent, and potentially easily overruled if the government has accepted, as they clearly have, and rightly, that the made to must change is essential for an independent reviewer to be both effective and legitimate, then the same logic surely applies here.

Why strengthening independence of the review of when it comes to cases brought against civil servants and public officials, but not for the people most directly affected by the exercise of state power, namely benefits claimants. We hope this omission omission is simply a drafting oversight rather than a deliberate policy choice, because otherwise the effect would be to create in practice, a one rule for us, one rule for them. Approach a powerful protected review for the officials, but a weak constraint one for those on welfare.

We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this will be corrected in due course, and that the government will bring forward a further amendment to ensure consistency and fairness across the bill. But for now, we thank the noble Baroness Lady Sherlock, for tabling this important amendments and the government for having listened and acted upon the concerns that were raised in committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to the contribution of noble Lords to this group, and I would like to respond group, and I would like to respond specifically and to reassure the noble Lord Lord Vaux about who will noble Lord Lord Vaux about who will decide and how it will be decided what constitutes relevant material for the independent review of under for the independent review of under 65, and what happens if they disagree? The independent reviewer under 65 will determine what
18:18
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
information is reasonably required from the PSFA. They must be able to demonstrate to the Minister that information requested will allow them to carry out the review and how, what is and is not relevant for the independent EVM review. It is a matter of fact. Information must only be given to the reviewer if it will allow them to carry out their functions as prescribed by section six of new section 121 DC of the legislation if required, the independent reviewer must be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that any information they request will allow them to carry out their review.

There may be rare examples of information that the Minister or Secretary of State may not share, such as the information relating to national security, should they deem it be, it would be unreasonable to do so should there be a disagreement between the Minister and the independent reviewer? There will be a resolution mechanism agreed between the reviewer and government. Ultimately, the minister may not disclose the information and in extreme cases, any ministerial judgement. A decision to withhold information could be subject to judicial review.

The independent review will also be able to comment on any information withheld from them in the report, which will be laid before Parliament. And my Lords, in response to the questions from the noble Baroness Finn, why it is not must across the bill and why it hasn't DWP echoed this requirement in clause 89. This is, as noble Ladies mentioned, going to be debated in a forthcoming group. However, I note that this divergence arises from the construction of part one of the bill.

Unlike DWP, PSFA has one clause 65 relating to all independent reviewers. We have noted that we intend to meet the duty of clause 65 by appointing a new independent reviewer to review PSFA use of powers, and by commissioning MC FRS. I am not sure what is easier to say the full name or the An acronym, but still to conduct inspections of our new investigative powers and end to end case processes. We are keen to let the independent reviewer and the government that we are keen to let the independent reviewer the government, were, appoint to have access to all reasonable and relevant information which may include live cases in respect of hemispheres.

We would not want them to consider live cases given the significant disclosure burden. However, in PSFA case, given the small volume of cases, we believe we can handle that challenge should an issue arrive in. My Lords, it really is DWP in terms of scale, access to live cases PSFA we think we can manage the difference. I hope those points have reassured noble Lords, and obviously we will continue to debate this issue at some of these issues next week. I am grateful for this short debate, and I and any support for government amendment, and I hope others will support these important amendments that will help improve transparency and promote accountability.

I would like to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment twenty three be agreed to As many as twenty three be agreed to As many as are of that opinion say, "content" and the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 24 moved contents have it. Amendment 24 moved formally moved formally. The question is that amendment twenty question is that amendment twenty four be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, "content" contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 66, amendment 25
18:22
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
after clause 66, amendment 25 Baroness Finn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the main focus of my remarks in this group will be on amendment 35, this amendment tabled amendment 35, this amendment tabled in my name, and that my noble friend Viscount Young, will would insert a Viscount Young, will would insert a new clause after clause 70 to require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess how independent reviewer to assess how the Public Sector Fraud Agency uses the Pace powers, those being the investigatory powers derived from investigatory powers derived from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that the Bill proposes to confer upon it.

Under this amendment, the independent reviewer would be tasked with examining how these powers are used in practice, these powers are used in practice, including their effect on police time, their operational impact, whether they have improved the whether they have improved the efficiency of investigations, and whether any complaints or disciplinary issues have arisen in disciplinary issues have arisen in relation to their use. The reviewer would report to the Minister within five years of the powers coming into five years of the powers coming into force, and annually thereafter, with those reports laid before both Houses of Parliament.

My Lords, we Houses of Parliament. My Lords, we are bringing this amendment forward as a genuine compromise. We on these benches want to work with the government to ensure that this Bill succeeds in its purpose, which is to strengthen our national effort to strengthen our national effort to combat fraud and to deliver a substantial and lasting reduction in losses to the public purse. We are not opposed to giving investigators the tools they need to do that job, but if the government is still intent, as we understand, on extending police powers to civil servants within the PSFA, then those powers must be accompanied by robust and transparent oversight.

This amendment is designed to provide precisely that. It is a balanced and proportionate measure that ensures accountability without hampering operational effectiveness. The government has been clear in their reasoning for granting granting these powers. They have said that this will save police time and resources, that it will allow investigators to act more efficiently, and that powers will be used responsibly and when necessary, in conjunction with the police. Our amendment simply holds the government to those assurances it asks them to demonstrate, through an independent review mechanism, that these powers are indeed delivering on the objectives they have set out.

If the government is confident that the PSFA will use these powers effectively and responsibly, and I have no reason to doubt their confidence, then they should have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. It would help them prove their case. The amendment gives the government, five years before the first review, ample time for the new arrangements to bed in, for the PSFA to become established, and for the data to show whether powers are working as intended. Thereafter, annual reporting would ensure continued transparency and accountability.

My Lords, it is clear that this amendment is not an attempt to frustrate the bill. Quite the opposite. It is an attempt to make it stronger, fairer and more credible. Oversight and review are not obstacles to effective governance. They are its foundation. If these powers are to be trusted, they must also be tested. We are therefore offering the government a constructive path forward to accept a mechanism that ensures evidence based assessment of how these powers are being used, whether they are proportionate and whether they are delivering measurable benefits.

If the government's own case is correct that these powers will save police time, strengthen enforcement and be exercised with care, then this amendment simply enshrines a process that will confirm that success. It is a sensible, good faith proposal that supports the government's stated objectives and ensures that Parliament, and indeed the public, can have confidence that this expansion of powers is justified, proportionate and effective. My Lords, if the government is confident in their case, they will support this amendment. It is drafted to aid them, not to hinder it, to help them, to help them demonstrate transparently and independently that these powers are being used well and wisely.

If they are not minded to support us. I hope that noble Ladies, the Minister, will take this opportunity to set out to the House what alternative proposals the government is considering to address these concerns. And if the government has no alternative, then may I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if we on these benches might come back at a later stage with a new amendment designed to address these, we cannot forget that we are talking about substantial powers, powers which will be wielded against people in this country outside these walls.

If we do not legislate responsibly now, we risk the well-being of those people to whom we all owe a duty. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 66. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed. My Lords, it could almost be like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it could almost be like we are back at committee. It is the Baroness Finn Baroness Anderson Baroness Finn Baroness Anderson show. I don't think many people would pay, but still. My Lords, I
18:27
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
would pay, but still. My Lords, I now turn to amendments 25 and 35. I welcome the noble Lady Baronesses Baroness Hollins continued an unwavering commitment to independent oversight. I can once again reassure her that the Bill, as it stands, delivers rigorous and robust safeguards and oversight. Addressing the intent behind these amendments efficiently, without the need for duplicative amendments in respect to amendment 25, internal reviews are important as they provide a straightforward and affordable way to present a challenge to decision making.

They are an impartial element of many review processes. Under the current drafting, internal reviews can be requested to challenge, for instance, whether a direct reduction order is the most appropriate form of repayment or whether the deduction amount is fair and affordable, as well as the use of other powers in the bill. The reviewing officer will be a highly trained authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision maker. They may decide to uphold, very or revoke the Director Reduction Order.

This decision will be based on an assessment of the materials held and any relevant new information provided. Crucially crucially, should a review not provide satisfaction, there are further independent appeal rights through the first tier tribunal moving to amendment 35, the independent oversight of the use of the powers under part one in keeping pace powers, is so central to the passage of this bill that we have already have clauses in place. The mandate is, as we have said, clause 65 and 66 requires that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers conveyed within this legislation.

The independent person will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They shall produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament. As we have stated, the government intends to meet the duty imposed by this clause in two ways. Firstly, the government will commission His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services hemispheres to inspect PSFA use of the new investigative powers, including end to end investigative processes.

Secondly, the government is creating a new position for an independent person to whom a PSFA oversight team will report. The independent person will carry out reviews and report on whether PSFA use of the powers in this bill is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, as well as considering whether area and areas where HMRC, FRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The appointment of an independent person will also fully comply with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on public Appointments that is overseen by the Commissioner of Public Appointments.

Crawley 66 provides for the arrangements of timing of reviews between the Minister and the independent person. In summary, the amendments are duplicative at heart. There is already the right to independent assessment built into the legislation by repeal and in the form of the independent reviewer to be appointed to review the use of the Bills powers under clause 65. These would not require the addition of the extra costs, people or processes that amendment 25 and 35 would entail. However, the government notes that amendment 35 specifically specifies particular areas of focus for a reviewer beyond what is in the bill.

Your Lordships' House has also raised other areas that it would like an independent reviewer to consider. We have been clear that the independent reviewer, the review, appointed a reviewer appointed under clause 65 and 66, will have discretion to decide how and where they focus their reviews. Even so, to ensure that your Lordships' House concerns are heard, I am committing to compiling a list of all concerns raised here and in the other place to put before the independent reviewer for consideration. Once appointed, I will also request that the independent reviewer meets with all parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think his or her work should be focussed there.

That way, the independent reviewer and the reports they will lay before Parliament will be certain to meet Parliament's priorities for scrutiny of the use of these powers. I hope, given these assurances and this additional option, that the noble Lady will withdraw her amendments, given that the purpose is already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

met by the Bill as it stands and the commitments I have just made. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. My Lords, as this is the final group this evening, I will be brief group this evening, I will be brief and I thank very much the words of the noble Baroness, the Minister and
18:32
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Baroness, the Minister and I was going to say, I wish to make clear that we do indeed intend to test the opinion of the House on amendment 35, which will be called on the second day of report. Given the what the noble Baroness the Minister has said, we will reflect on, on, on on that, but also I, I am giving notice that that we may intend to test the opinion of the House. I do say, because, you know, we do believe that this is a well drafted and constructive proposal and one that seeks to work with the government in their efforts, and we believe it should form an integral part of the bill, so we can see how what what is proposed marries up with that.

Thank you. So the amendment goes to the heart of the balance between employer and members of the Public Sector Fraud Authority Effectively, and ensuring use of powers is subject to proper, transparent oversight. We believe that as the noble Baroness has, the Minister has said that there is genuine scope for compromise. Our aim has always been not to constrain the government, but to ensure that where such significant investigatory powers are granted, they are exercised with appropriate safeguards, transparency and oversight that we think is essential if we are to maintain public confidence and protect individuals while still enabling the PSFA to pursue fraud effectively.

The government has chosen to test and own approach. Sorry, I have to do this, to this, to this bill which has replaced the former proof of concept. So such an approach must be accompanied by clear provisions to report and evaluate these tests, ensuring that the learning happens in the right way. Meeting the government's own test for the use of face powers is a key part of that framework. That is what our amendment 35 seeks to achieve. But I thank the Minister for, for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words. And we will we will reflect. I, I take leave to withdraw amendment 25. The Lordships place of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lordships place of the amendment 25 be withdrawn. It is by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 25 be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Adjourn. Adjourn. Will adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adjourn. Will adjourn. Report. My Lords, can I at this point adjourn our discussions at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report stage and move to the statement? The question is that further consideration on the report be now consideration on the report be now adjourned. As many as Of that opinion, say 'content' and the country not content. The contents country not content. The contents have it. So we will move then to the have it. So we will move then to the statement. I'm sorry. It. Was there something?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something? We apologies to members of your Lordships' House. I believe I have just pre-emptive pre-empted our just pre-emptive pre-empted our work. Can we just pretend the last 30s didn't happen? And if we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

30s didn't happen? And if we can continue with report stage just briefly. Amendment 26 Baroness Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jenkin not made. Hello my notes. Would it be possible at this point for us to adjourn report stage on the forge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill and move on to next business? And there's further consideration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there's further consideration of the report. Be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say, "content" the country not content. "content" the country not content. The contents have it and just I'll give a moment for people just to change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. That is way to go. Oh, yes. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Questions?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. Questions on the statement made
18:36
None Portrait Statement: Manchester Attack
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on the statement made in the House of Commons on Monday the 13th of October on the
18:36
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
the 13th of October on the Manchester attack.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It has been almost two weeks now since the since Manchester was left since the since Manchester was left reeling from yet another terrorist attack. The events of the 2nd of attack. The events of the 2nd of October not only ended the lives of Adrian Dalby and Melvin Kravitz, but left our entire Jewish community left our entire Jewish community worrying about their safety. We are in an appalling situation now where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in an appalling situation now where we have to have armed police and. Security patrols. Outside of. Synagogues and Jewish schools

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Synagogues and Jewish schools simply to ensure British Jews. Can. Go about their daily lives. Safely. In the immediate aftermath of such an attack. Such measures are, of course, necessary. But my Lords are places of worship

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But my Lords are places of worship and our community centres should be places of safety. No British citizen. Should have to live in perpetual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Should have to live in perpetual fear simply because they are Jewish. I do. Have an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Observation to make whenever we speak of terrorist attacks, violence. In this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And elsewhere, we often offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It has also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and their families. It has also become commonplace to repeat the refrain, never again. We have said. These words.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Too many times. We hear them too often, but we must move on from simply offering hollow words of condolences, thoughts and prayers. Do not revive a grieving wife's husband. Thoughts and prayers do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prevent future attacks. Thoughts and prayers do not save lives. These attacks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These attacks. Happen again and again. Beyond expressing our condolences, it is expressing our condolences, it is our duty as legislators to work together to tackle the evil that lay behind this attack. We must be clear behind this attack. We must be clear that this attack, this terror attack and the rise of Islamic extremism and the rise of Islamic extremism and increasing anti-Semitism are in explicitly linked. This year has explicitly linked. This year has seen the second highest number of anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded in this country.

Hate filled in this country. Hate filled marches, ostensibly in the name of the pro-Palestine movement, but frequently entering the territory of frequently entering the territory of being anti-Jewish, have filled our streets. But for as long as we fail streets. But for as long as we fail to tackle the growth of radical and violent Islamic extremism, both at home and abroad, attacks such as home and abroad, attacks such as these are unlikely to continue. We must not shy away from calling this must not shy away from calling this what it is an extremist ideology linked to Islam, and we must ensure that we are always able to call out such an ideology.

Unfortunately, the government's working Group on government's working Group on Islamophobia could serve to actively stifle free debate on the nature and prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. This is being criticised by the National Secular Society, the Free Speech Union and the network of Sikh organisations who are planning to bring a judicial review against the government. If the new definition goes ahead, so can the noble Lord. The Minister, please implore his ministerial colleagues to drop these plans and ensure that free and open discussion about the dangers we face as a society from Islamic extremism is never curtailed.

My Lords, I appreciate this is a live legal investigation and as such there is a limit as to what the noble or the minister can tell us. There are several questions that arise from the particulars of these events, however. Firstly, the attackers in question, jihad al-Sham, the attacker in question, jihad Al Shami, was a Syrian born male who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child. He begged a woman to become his second wife, claiming in Islam it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives and then abused her mentally and sexually.

At the time he carried out his attack, he was on bail for a rape he allegedly committed earlier this year. When he committed the attack, he called 909 and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Despite all this, he was apparently not known to counter-terror police. So does the noble Lord the minister agree that more needs to be done to plug the gaps in the government's terrorism prevention program, and if so, is the government looking into how they might do so? Secondly, the Home Secretary in her statement said she was looking to bring forward legislative changes to the Public Order Act 1986 to allow police forces to consider the collective impact of protest marches when deciding to impose those conditions.

Indeed, we have seen the government claim that they did not have sufficient powers to prevent the hate filled marches across the country. The day after the 2nd of October attack in Manchester, however, section 12 of the Public Order Act already permits the senior police officer to place conditions on a public procession if they hold it to cause intimidation to others. So is it the government's view that this existing test would not have been enough to place restrictions on those marches? And does the Minister think that proposed new cognitive impact tests will be sufficient? I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. My Lords, the appalling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Attack on the. Manchester synagogue is a stark. Warning of the. Persistent threat of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Persistent threat of anti-Semitism. Some anti-Semitic hate and the. Urgent need to unify.
18:41
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Urgent need to unify. Against those who seek to divide US. Attacks based. On race or. Religion are. Totally unacceptable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Totally unacceptable. And this attack is a chilling. Testament to the. Rising tide of. Division in our. Society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Society. Which has left many in the Jewish community frightened even to go to community frightened even to go to their synagogue. Anti-Semitic hate or hate in any form has no place in Britain, so we must never.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Allow the heat of. Public debate to legitimise, excuse. Encourage or embolden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Encourage or embolden. Such cowardly acts. Of terrorism. Anyone who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anyone who. Incites hatred or spreads it against any. Faith or background must be. Held accountable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must be. Held accountable. Under the law. This crime was not a political statement, but an act of pure statement, but an act of pure violence designed to spread fear and drive communities apart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drive communities apart. political. Parties.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Share a responsibility to seek. Consensus and reduce division when addressing issues that provoke

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addressing issues that provoke strong passions. As a society, we're becoming more polarised. With. Public debate, whether about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public debate, whether about events in the Middle East, immigration or indeed any other difficult subject too frequently difficult subject too frequently descending into hostility and suspicion. We all must reject the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suspicion. We all must reject the language and. The policies. Of division, and commit to trying to rebuild. A sense of common to rebuild. A sense of common purpose. And as we mourn the victims of this atrocity, we must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this atrocity, we must. Also guard against overreaction. The temptation can be to reach out for more powers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More controls. Even. At the expense. Of our fundamental freedoms. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of our fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister's pledge to review public order. Powers in the wake of Manchester is understandable, but I urge the government, the government, to approach with. Caution because to approach with. Caution because incremental kerbs on protests will not stop anti-Semitic hate. But a drip drip.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Approach to legislation. Risks us becoming a society where people of all backgrounds and people of all backgrounds and beliefs no longer feel safe or free to express their views. That would,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to express their views. That would, in my view. Hand victory. To. Those who want to divide us, because the restriction of protest. Rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights. Will not defeat anti-Semitism, but risks damaging our democracy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but risks damaging our democracy. So the best way to. Respond to hate is. To defend. Everyone's right to live, worship

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Everyone's right to live, worship and speak freely within the law. While refusing. To. Compromise our commitment to an open, open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an open, open. And plural democracy. We must learn from this tragedy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We must learn from this tragedy. So may I ask the Minister, what action is the government taking to action is the government taking to work more closely with grassroots faith leaders, not only through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funding and policing, but through genuine, community led. Early warning and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Early warning and. Education work? Working with Jewish and interfaith. And interfaith groups.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To strengthen local resilience, encourage reporting and tackle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

radicalisation at its roots. Its. Minister Ministers Minister. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Ministers Minister. No. No, Minister. Yeah. Should give him a chance to sit down. I'm grateful.
18:45
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. For. The approach taken by as much as his loyal opposition and by the his loyal opposition and by the colleague from the Liberal Democrat benches, and for their condemnation of what is an evil act of anti-Semitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. And that was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. Like both noble Lords who have spoken to date.

I want to pay tribute to the two men who were killed that day, Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Dalby, because their bravery saved lives. Their actions were commendable and the whole House should express their deepest sympathies. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did in her statement to their families and friends. I think it's also important that we do recognise today that the worshippers, the staff, the volunteers, but also the emergency services responded in a superlative way in a very quick fashion and that the police officers themselves took difficult decisions in dangerous circumstances and arrived at the scene of this terrible terrorist incident with speed, an attack on our Jewish communities, an attack on the entire nation, and indeed, as the noble Lord David Gower said, there is no ambiguity around who is responsible for this attack.

The attack, carried out by Jihad Al Shami, a 35 year old British citizen Shami, a 35 year old British citizen of Syrian descent, was instigated by the influence of extreme Islamist ideology, evident by the nine nine call that he made during the incident and his pledging of allegiance to the Islamic State. Our immediate response to this issue has been several fold. The noble Lord mentioned sympathy. That is important, but it is not enough. As was mentioned, our immediate priority has been to enhance security, particularly within synagogue locations, and additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations.

And as all noble Lords in the House will know, there is a long standing commitment to fund the Community Security Trust to the tune of £18 million per year. It's also no coincidence, and I put this back again in relation to the question of Islamophobia that this month has also seen the suspected arson attack on a mosque in Peacehaven in East Sussex. And from my perspective, I want to be clear as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in the statement that violence directed at any community, being a Jewish or Muslim of all faiths or none, are attacks on the fabric of this country and should be condemned.

Now, the noble Lord asked. David Sanger asked about the proposals that my Right honourable friend has announced in relation to section 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, 1986, and Baroness Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also questioned whether that impacts upon freedom. And that's a legitimate point to put, and I accept that she has put that in good faith. I would say to the House that the right to protest is a fundamental right in our society, and the right to protest must be protected.

But the freedoms that we enjoy, none of those are more important than the right to live in peace and in safety. And the government has examined very clearly the powers under section 12 and section 14 of the Public Order Act and has come to the conclusion that while the right to protest is a fundamental freedom, it must be balanced against the right of the public to have their safety and security. And in the very conversations that my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, has had with community leaders of all faiths and with community leaders of no faith, she has come to the conclusion, with support from the police, that it is clear that a balance has not been struck.

And for that reason, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has confirmed that she is now examining amending sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, 1986. Now, what does that mean? It means that the police will be able to take into account the cumulative impact of frequent protests. Now, the police already have powers under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to agree routes, to agree times, and to a greater whole range of other conditions. One of the things that we're examining, and we will bring forward proposals in due course, is to ensure that if there are a number of protests that commence and continue on conditions set by the police, but ultimately that results in the intimidation or fear in a particular community, then the police will have powers under the proposals we will bring forward to look at whether they wish to or not.

The government, the police wish to put additional conditions to secure the support of the community. Now those are important. And with the Home Secretary amending the Public Order Act, we will bring forward proposals shortly to examine those particular issues. I think also, it's important to say to the House that we have, in the days since the attack, stepped up our efforts to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it is found, challenging misinformation and hatred in schools and looking at what is happening in universities, particularly to protect students of the Jewish faith, and also to ensure that particularly patients in the National Health Service and staff and the National Health Service are all so supported.

But I also say to the House that terrorism seeks to do one thing, which is to divide us. And I do not intend, nor does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to allow terrorism to divide us. We have a strong level of support for the Jewish community as a whole. We want to ensure that people can live their faiths from whatever faith in peace and security, and it is simply not acceptable to have incidents of this nature. But we also need to look at again, and this is one of the key points that the noble Earl Davies has made in his questions.

To me, this individual who committed this terrorist act, who murdered and the tried to murder individuals in the synagogue, he has no record of contact with authorities. He has, for whatever reason, Self-radicalized now there will be an investigation. I can't go into what has happened further. The police are continuing to make investigations into his background. Further arrests have been made, but self-evidently the security services need to look at where there are organised cells undertaking activity.

But we also need to look at what the reasons are for self radicalisation and what that leads to and how that is being formed and what the processes are that lead to that. But it remains very difficult for an individual to be identified if they've had no contact on what I would call terrorist related activity. Now, this individual has had contact with the police prior to the incident, but not on a terrorist related incident. The Independent Office of Police Complaints will investigate the police performance in the contact prior to the incident and will investigate.

Obviously, the circumstances of a fatality at the incident and they will produce a report which will hopefully colour our examination of some of those issues at a later date. But I do hope that that the government as a whole will look at the issues that both noble Lords have mentioned in their contributions. But I do think it's important that we maintain the balance of looking at wherever citizens are threatened from, wherever that we give them that support. And I say to the noble Baroness Doocey that I believe the measures that we're taking in the proposals, my right honourable friend has outlined are ones which still protect the right to protest, still protect freedom of speech, but also give additional support to those communities of whichever faith or indeed of non, which find themselves under persistent pressure from a particular protest group which causes fear in their own community and a religious establishment, or indeed in their home community area.

The measures that we've talked about today will be brought forward in short order, and the reports and lessons that are brought will allow the government to reflect on these matters. I just simply say at the end of my contribution that the government has to be eternally vigilant on these matters. There are continually people who wish to do harm to sections of the community for political and ideological reasons, and we have a very strong security presence and security service to identify that where possible.

But we do need to look, and I think this goes to the point that the longer this is made at what leads to radicalisation of individuals and how we can look at better measures to pick that up at an early stage, so that the interventions that we do have in place as a government are able to be applied to individuals who, for whatever reason, find themselves warping their minds. And eventually, as in this case, leading their hatred to acts of terrorism, which put people who are just going about their ordinary day to day lives on the holiest day of the year, facing murder, disruption, fear and, dare I say, ongoing concern about radicalisation and issues to date.

So I hope the House will bear with me on these matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we will examine the lessons and bring forward proposals in due course. Yeah, my Lord, the Lord of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, can I thank you. Bishop? My Lords. I do apologise for intruding myself in the wrong order earlier. My Lords, my prayers are with the victims and their families and all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

victims and their families and all our Jewish communities. Following this appalling attack.
18:55
Lord Bishop of Lichfield Portrait The Lord Bishop of Lichfield (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Following this appalling attack. It is shocking that the ancient evil of anti-Semitism is currently resurgent in our society, and we must remain vigilant against that and against all forms of religious hatred. No one in this country should ever feel unsafe because of their faith, and particularly not unsafe in their place of worship at a time of religious rising religious hate crime, it seems to me more important than ever to create opportunities for connection between communities across religious and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cultural differences, so that so. I. Want to echo the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to echo the noble Baroness in asking the minister what practical steps the government is taking to work with and to support faith leaders and interfaith organisations in efforts to help organisations in efforts to help communities build relationships across religious divides, to promote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understanding and to strengthen cohesion. I'm grateful to the Right Reverend prelate, and I think it's Reverend prelate, and I think it's really important that those of different faiths to the Jewish different faiths to the Jewish community stand with them and express their solidarity and support express their solidarity and support for what are attacks for, again, an for what are attacks for, again, an aspect of life, the religion and their very being that they cherish their very being that they cherish very dearly.

And it is simply not acceptable to do that. And I know that in the wake of a number of that in the wake of a number of recent incidents, the coming together of churches, of the Jewish together of churches, of the Jewish faith, of people from the Islamic faith has been extremely important in giving comfort and support to those who have been victims of those terrorist attacks. The government, through ministers in other departments, not the Home Office, which I speak for today, is looking at how we bring together those faiths, how we look at building resilience.

And again, the simple thing that I want to have, which might be an ambition that I hope the whole House will share, is that we have an open, tolerant society that recognises but also cherishes our differences of approach to religion, to community and to faith. And that means that people of all traditions should work together. And if the government can facilitate that, and I'm pleased to say my Noble friend, Lord Khan of Burnley, who in the in the confines of the chamber, who who put a tremendous amount of effort over the past 12 months in his role in government in reaching out to all faiths, including several hundred visits to mosques, to synagogues and to churches.

And again, that I know that that that that work that he did was personally driven. But it's also important that it was government driven, with the support of government, to try to do exactly what the Right Reverend Palliser said and exactly what the noble Baroness Doocey on behalf of the Liberal Democrats has said, which is to bring together communities to identify problems and challenges, but to hopefully have a concerted collective approach to solving.
18:59
18:59
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

They. Have made, which would be much appreciated by the Jewish community. Minister's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's. Remarks about. The performance of Lord. Khan of. Burnley. Which, again. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Very much appreciated. By the Jewish and many other communities. But the Minister will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities. But the Minister will. Appreciate that the Yom Kippur attack, appalling as. It was, is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was, is. Not an isolated event. And I want to ask the minister, what does it to ask the minister, what does it say about our society that for. Several years, not just in the past

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two weeks, synagogues, Jewish schools. Jewish communal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Events have required. Security. Protection. And this is not the sort of society, is it, that we want sort of society, is it, that we want to live in. And what can we do. To to live in. And what can we do. To address why it is. That Islamists and their supporters threaten the and their supporters threaten the Jewish community? They tear down photographs of the hostages for photographs of the hostages for whose release we are all deeply appreciative.

Islamists doctors appreciative. Islamists doctors abuse Jewish patients and students abuse Jewish patients and students chant and I quote, zeros should be buried in the ground.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How is it? I asked the minister. But people brought up and educated in this country think it appropriate to behave in this manner.
19:00
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

manner. Well, I'm grateful I condemn all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful I condemn all of those actions that the noble Lord has mentioned in his contribution today. It is a worry as to how that has manifested itself, and that is a long term issue that we need to examine in government. We have and again, people should be allowed to live their lives in peace with security of the community around them without physical security. But I think it's important that we do, as we have done, provide through the Community Security Trust to the Jewish community, some £18 million this year.

We've supplied an even larger amounts of money to help protect mosques and places of religion from the Islamic community because as the Peace Haven arson attacks showed, this is not something that's restricted to one side of the community. I want to say that if people have differences of opinion about political issues, of which there are differences of opinion on some of the political issues relating to situations in the Middle East, that they resolve those through political process, not through violence, intimidation or harassment.

So I say to the noble Lord that as a government, we will do what we can to ensure that we return to a position whereby political differences are resolved by discussion where respect for other people's lives and community activity is engendered in our society. But where until we can get to that stage, we have to provide and we will do through government, financial, political and material support to protect people, to live their own lives. And I hope in doing that, that the Jewish community, in this instance in particular, wherever it resides in the United Kingdom, will take comfort from the fact that the government remains on its side to ensure that it can enjoy its life in whichever way it seeks to enjoy it without fear, intimidation or harassment.

And that's why we brought forward not just the measures to date, but are also looking at the potential measures to improve security in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to protests and parades. My Lords call. Our thoughts are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords call. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and the Jewish community, not just in Manchester but throughout the
19:03
19:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
of both Houses of Parliament, he will have seen also access to information which gives greater detail and background to some of the threats that we face from people. Both of the Islamist tendency, but also of right wing neo fascist tendencies also. And he will know that there is, in this online space, greater potential for radicalisation by individuals who will sit in a bedroom, will look at stuff, be drawn down, a kaleidoscope of activity to reach areas whereby people who wish this country ill, or individual communities ill, will radicalise those individuals downstream.

Now we have introduced the Online Safety Act. We need to look at making sure that the tech companies take down information that is poisonous as a matter of some urgency, and we keep that under constant review. And I would welcome again recommendations and support from the Intelligence Security Committee, who will say information that members of this House won't say to ensure that we improve that policy objective, to ensure that online radicalisation is as limited as it can be by actions that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government tech companies on an international and national basis can take. First, I'd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First, I'd. Like to thank the Minister for the statement. I think it was the most helpful and comprehensive, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most helpful and comprehensive, and also to echo the thanks. To the. Emergency services. On that day in Manchester, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that day in Manchester, which was most appalling event. I just like to raise two areas, if I may, and of course, we welcome anything and of course, we welcome anything that the Home Secretary can do to deal with these anti-Semitic think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We. Can wait. Frankly, I think in. Place to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Place to. Actually prevent them continuing. I think. This was. An event that was. Waiting to happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Waiting to happen. Notwithstanding the escalation. Of these protests. Over the last two years, certainly since.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly since. The October 7th. Attacks in Israel. I recall we had meetings with the. Metropolitan Police over a year,
19:06
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Metropolitan Police over a year, 18 months ago. And we. Said. To them, how. Can we stop these.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Protests because these these people are calling for jihad. They were calling for the. Annihilation of the state of Israel and all Jews

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the state of Israel and all Jews could. Think of. And it was overt. It was on the streets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was on the streets. They carried placards about Nazis and all of these things. And we were told, well, of course we can't stop these protests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can't stop. These protests if they reach a certain threshold. And my point was, certain threshold. And my point was, well, what's the threshold that you need to reach if they're already calling for the death and destruction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of people and citizens of this country? So we are now another 18 months on, and I don't think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can actually wait. For further legislation to be passed. I think these, these passed. I think these, these protests now need to stop. And I think they were totally offensive that they continued, frankly, after that they continued, frankly, after the attacks in Manchester, I think absolutely appalling. These people have no conscience and they have no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have no conscience and they have no they have no moral compass. Frankly. My second point is. But let's see where we go with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But let's see where we go with this. My second. Point is. The radicalisation of Islam. I think Lord Khan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think Lord Khan. Can help. Here. Because what we are aware. Of. That we have clerics in mosques

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we have clerics in mosques around this country and they are actually purporting death and there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there. It's on video. The police have. The evidence and. Nothing is done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The evidence and. Nothing is done. We know that there have been clerics who have come. From really quite difficult countries, like the Islamic Republic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countries, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we know that there are people and they are preaching. Death and destruction. Which is actually radicalising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people. So my. Question then is. Could the role that Lord. Khan has played is actually very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Khan has played is actually very important, how. We actually how the security services, how are the services in this country. Dealing with these people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because these. Are. Also. I'm afraid, responsible for the actions that. Happened in Manchester and the continuing anti-Semitism, which is not going away currently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's on the streets of. Our cities in. This country.
19:08
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness and can I say so, first of all, that I'm starting from the all, that I'm starting from the basis that protest is a legitimate point and that can be processed on a range of issues. People can march, people can protest, people can make their point known. But there are thresholds beyond which harassment, criminal incitement or physical incitement to activity are criminally sanctioned currently, and the police have made arrests and will continue to do so on a range of issues.

If people cross that threshold. Now, what we're looking at, which I hope will assist the noble Baroness, is that at the moment the police have powers to stop, reroute time marches that are going through or appearing at areas where there could be additional heightened tension. We don't we know what those examples could be, but at the moment the police can do that on a one off basis. What we're saying is in the potential legislation we're bringing forward is that if that is continuing over a period of time, the police will have additional powers to look at putting in steps to protect the community.

That's important, and we're going to try and do that at some pace. Now, again, she mentions individuals who might well be seeking to radicalise others or cause others to take action, which is of a criminal nature. There is a threshold to that in legislation currently, and if that threshold is crossed, then individuals can be taken to court for those offences. As a side issue to that, the government is establishing further an anti-Semitism working group to provide advice to the government on anti-Semitism generally.

We're working closely now with the government's adviser on anti-Semitism to look at the most effective methods to tackle anti-Semitism, and we want to ensure that we continue to challenge extremism. And if people do go over that criminal threshold, they are brought to account that may not today satisfy the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will recognise the prime objective of this government is to ensure that people can live their lives in peace, free from intimidation, harassment and religious persecution, and that is for any faith, but particularly in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this circumstance today, for those of the Jewish faith. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My eight year old daughter already has to go into and out of her Jewish school. Every day with.
19:11
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every day with. A heavy security presence. There are security guards on the door, there is security doors in and out, and she asked me if we should stop going to synagogue. Following the horrors of the Manchester attack. In the wake of this event, I've listened to all the contributions. I think the ultimate priority of our government has to be to ensure people of all faiths, including the British Jewish community, can worship and practice our religion without fear of being murdered on British soil.

And in that spirit, if I can ask my noble friend if he can confirm when the government is planning to publish an extremism strategy, what references it will have to previous publications, including The Shawcross, Khan and Woolly Reviews. And when the government is planning to publish a hate crime, a hate crime action plan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope my noble friend will accept that. I find it very sad to hear the comments that she's made hear the comments that she's made initially relating to her daughter. No child should have to go to No child should have to go to school. Faced with the potential of seeing people who are protecting her from people who are trying to kill her or her family, and that is a deeply disturbing comment that my noble friend has made. But I understand why she's made it so deeply saddens me that that's the society we've come to in certain parts of the United Kingdom.

I can't give a specific answers on the give a specific answers on the points that she's made, because my answer might sound glib if I say shortly, which is what I will say, but I will certainly ensure that but I will certainly ensure that energy is put into the publication of further information to widen the of further information to widen the response of government. And I hope that further announcements will be made soon to ensure the protection made soon to ensure the protection of the Jewish community, particularly given the concerns that she's made and we will be bringing she's made and we will be bringing forward, as I've mentioned, a range of measures shortly and trailed by my right honourable friend, the Home my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in the statement earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this week. I'm beginning. To move at the House to know. That the.
19:13
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page