Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.

This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill is that it will recover a tiny 1.8% of losses?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector; the Bill will recover £1.5 billion. However, it is part of broader measures—certainly on the Department for Work and Pensions side of the Bill —to save £9.6 billion across the forecast period. By the very nature of the changes that we are making with the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are designing them to be scalable. As the PSFA becomes more familiar with the work it is undertaking, we think that it will be able to save a significant amount more.

As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, with benefit fraud alone costing £7.4 billion in 2023-24, this is a major problem that is getting worse, not better. We cannot afford to ignore it, and we certainly do not accept it. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. Our public services, everyone who depends on them, and the taxpayers who fund them, all suffer. And they are increasingly suffering at the hands of fraudsters who use ever more sophisticated techniques to steal money meant for the public good.

The private sector has evolved and adapted its tools and tactics to respond, but, as the scale of the losses that I have just outlined make clear, the same cannot yet be said for the public sector. With this Bill, we will put that right. There will be new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside the tax and social security systems, and new powers for the DWP to modernise its response to fraud and error in the benefit system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, this Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the dodgy business people who try to defraud our public services and it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system. It is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. And it is fair to taxpayers, who deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I would be very happy to report to the House on the reasons why we would not do that. I am sure the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her separately to set out how I intend for us to do that. It seems to be a reasonable request.

Returning to my original point, the current drafting would mean that DWP can compel information of that kind from private landlords or estate agents, but not from housing associations. There is an inequity there that we are seeking to address with the amendments, clarifying the drafting and continuing to protect the personal information of service users of crisis support or advocacy services.

The Bill also brings forward new information-gathering powers that govern how DWP-authorised officers can compel information to support an investigation into fraud. It also sets out where information must not be compelled—for example, to protect the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege. Separately, the Bill brings forward powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP-authorised investigators, those tasked with investigating the most serious cases of fraud. It does that by bringing those authorised investigators under the remit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, and by creating similar powers in Scotland for DWP-authorised investigators. That ensures that those investigators are governed by a similar legal framework to other law enforcement bodies that are granted access to use those types of powers.

Government amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the exemptions to information that DWP-authorised officers can compel are not applicable to authorised investigators when using powers of entry, search and seizure. Government amendment 45 mirrors that provision for the PSFA. Those amendments will support effective fraud investigation, as without access, crucial evidence might remain out of reach, slowing down our response to fraud. Those exemptions are important, but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, already provides such restrictions and safeguards by only enabling that information to be compelled with the approval of the courts, coupled with similar conventions that apply for Scotland. The amendment ensures that there is no duplication. The powers in the Bill remain in line with existing conventions, as set out in PACE, and correctly reflect the norms of the Scottish legal system.

Turning to Government amendments 61 to 66, paragraph 10 of schedule 3ZD currently refers to definitions within PACE in relation to special procedure material, confidential professional material, excluded material and items subject to legal privilege.

Government amendments 63 and 51 set out specific definitions to avoid linking provisions that relate solely to Scotland with existing legislation that applies to England and Wales. This also ensures that legal privilege and “items subject to legal privilege” references contained in the schedule are correctly defined for Scotland. Government amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to amendment 63.

Government amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the powers for the DWP under PACE taken by the Bill in schedule 4 are aligned with those of the police and other Government Departments, such as HMRC, and provide a clear legal framework for what evidence can be seized and how it should be handled. Government amendments 47 and 48 mean that DWP-authorised investigators, such as the police, can seize items that are reasonably believed to be evidence of an offence, not just DWP-related offences, when undertaking entry, search and seizure activities in England and Wales. This will mean that potential evidence of any other offence, if discovered in the course of a search, can be preserved and may be seized where it is considered necessary to prevent it from being destroyed or moved. The amendments ensure that the law is clear on how it must be handled and transferred to the most appropriate law enforcement agency in England and Wales. Government amendments 49, 50 and 59 make similar provisions for authorised investigators in Scotland to those I have just described for England and Wales.

Government amendments 57 and 58 clarify how authorised investigators can prevent access to seized evidence from any offence if it may prejudice criminal proceedings in Scotland, by amending the definition of “offence” in schedule 3ZD inserted by schedule 4 of this Act. This mirrors the same provisions that are already in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales.

Government amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 are all minor and technical amendments to correct inconsistencies in terminology. Government amendment 34 is a minor and technical amendment to provide the correct reference to powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to ensure that the powers in Scotland align with those in England and Wales. Government amendment 52 amends the period of time in which a warrant must be exercised to Scotland from three months to one month. This corrects the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.

Government amendment 70 ensures that the court has the power to order a person, having been disqualified, to provide their NI or EU driving licence, as is already the case for those holding a GB licence, under the new debt recovery powers. The Bill as drafted would allow a DWP debtor who evades payment and holds an NI or EU licence to be disqualified from driving. However, it inadvertently limits the court’s ability to order that person to produce their licence unless it was issued in Great Britain, undermining the power and causing administrative difficulties for the court and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Government amendment 70 corrects this and ensures parity between GB, NI and EU driving licences under the powers in schedule 6.

Government amendments 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 ensure that the application and limitation period in clause 99 follows the policy intention that the PSFA can investigate fraud and recover debt in England and Wales. Government amendment 44 also ensures that the DWP’s debt recovery powers in this Bill are not limited in Scotland to the usual five-year time limits in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. This makes it clear that the longer 20-year recovery period in Scotland applies to such provisions introduced or amended by this Bill. As I have set out, the intent behind these amendments is to ensure the delivery of the intended policy intent or to ensure the correct territorial application of the Bill.

[David Davis]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will forgive me for waiting till what appears to be the end of his list. When the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asked him about the application of the Human Rights Act in this context, he said that the Bill did not breach it, in effect. My advice is a little different, and I waited to hear about his amendments to see whether anything in them changed that. My advice is that suspicionless financial surveillance could breach article 8, which covers the right to privacy, and article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination. Will the Minister make his legal advice on this available to the House? This is incredibly important and it is central to the major criticism of this Bill.

[Andrew Western]

I have already made clear that I am satisfied with the advice I have received. We will make available all the information we are required to make available, but the right hon. Member will appreciate that I am not able to give an undertaking to release all legal advice at this stage. What I can say to him is that I am very confident that there is no breach of article 8 in particular. That has been explored at length as we have gone through the process.

I welcome the ongoing engagement with industry and key stakeholders. We have made a significant effort to engage all interested parties and listen to their views. That feedback has been important in shaping our approach to the Bill to date and will continue to be so as it moves to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I start by assuring the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that my office has talked me out of mentioning the Waitrose cheesecake that was a hot topic throughout Committee. On a more serious note, I would like to explore the challenges in the Bill. As we have heard, fraud can only be a bad thing, as it robs the public purse, but we need to ensure that our approach is proportionate, and that is where the rub is for us, as Liberal Democrats.

First, I want to focus on the covid crisis. We all lived through that, and some of us were in hot seats. I was leader of Torbay council at the time, so it felt as if I was in the eye of the storm for some of those challenges. I am afraid to say that for many of us in this Chamber, it feels as if the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel, given the level of fraud that we saw taking place during the pandemic. The fact that £10 billion-worth of fraud occurred around personal protective equipment is shocking. Some £16 billion of fraud occurred around support for businesses. While it was extremely important that we supported businesses appropriately, the safeguards were extremely limited. One businessman in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got handfuls of £50 notes, filled carrier bags across the town centre, and said to the criminal element, “Come and help yourselves.” The reality is that the money could and should have been put to good use. In my constituency, Torbay hospital is crying out for investment. We have a sewage scandal, and the Environment Agency could be supported in tackling that issue. We also have the cost of living crisis; we could support people in ensuring warmer homes. All that money could help with those things.

A colleague and good friend has already alluded to the carer’s allowance crisis, and the real challenge that it poses. More than 136,000 people—the population of the Torbay unitary authority area—are affected by it. There is some £250 million of cost on those people. We Liberal Democrats fear that the powers in the Bill could make things even tougher for those who have challenges to do with the carer’s allowance.

Members do not have to take it from me that the benefits system is broken; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said that it is. If there is such agreement in Government that the benefits system is broken, why are we adding to this edifice? It is built on a foundation of sand, yet we are looking to pile more responsibilities on to it, without looking for the true, positive culture change in the DWP that we need.

Colleagues have alluded to the areas of debate around the Bill. I will touch on a few major concerns that we Liberal Democrats have. The opportunity that the Bill presents for Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits causes me grave concern.

[David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman has got to a point on which I wholeheartedly agree with him. Something like 9.8 million people will fall directly under the reach of this Bill; if we include their carers, landlords and a variety of other people, it is more than 10 million people. I would think that the number of fraudsters in that number is very small, but not vanishingly small, so we will put probably more than 9 million people under unnecessary surveillance. He is right to call that Orwellian.

[Steve Darling]

I concur strongly with the right hon. Gentleman.

Also of core concern to us is the lowering of the bar for being able to take money out of people’s bank accounts, and the opportunity to withdraw driving licences from offenders. However, as colleagues have said, the best practice document is missing. That was alluded to on a number of occasions. It is difficult to understand the true nature of this Bill if we do not know what that guidance will look like.

We also have real challenges around Henry VIII powers. Elements of the Bill should be written into it, but are not, so there are real issues there. We welcome the independent reviewer of the Bill, but the Secretary of State will be able to appoint their own independent reviewer; we do not welcome the Secretary of State effectively marking their own homework by making the appointment themselves.

Big Brother Watch, Age UK and a multitude of other charities have highlighted concerns about the Bill, such as the breakdown in trust that it could cause and the risk of amplifying the challenges faced by people with disabilities. It could also impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as those with learning disabilities. That causes us great concern; Liberal Democrats would like to see a real culture change. In our manifesto, we talked about co-design, which involves working with people who are benefits claimants and people with disabilities to make sure that the system is a better fit and more fit for purpose. As far as we are concerned, taking a more relational approach, rather than an adversarial one, is the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

As I have tried to explain, the Bill introduces fundamental changes to the nature of our welfare system and its use.

[David Davis]

I am a signatory to amendment 11. In answer to the point that has just been made to the hon. Gentleman, if the banks use algorithms, they will have an error rate of at least 1%. That means 10,000 or more innocent people will be dragged through the system by this proposal.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The right hon. Member brings me to my next point, which is the risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale, given the sheer volume of accounts that will be scanned. That is glaringly obvious. These new powers also strip those who receive state support of that fundamental principle of British law, the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said earlier.

Amendment 11 would ensure that the Government can tackle fraudsters, but would limit the use of an eligibility verification notice to cases where a welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing and not merely of error. That proportionate and necessary safeguard would prevent the corruption of our welfare system, which will turn it from a safety net—meant to offer dignity and support to those in need—into a punitive system, where accessing help comes at the cost of someone’s privacy and civil liberties.

The Bill grants the Department draconian powers to apply to a court to have people stripped of their driving licence if they have an outstanding debt, whether for overpayment, fraud or error. Amendments 10 and 12 would remove that power from the Bill. There are fairer and more effective ways to enforce the law. Analysis of the Bill has shown that where assessment deems that a financial deduction would cause hardship, the debtor can face losing their licence. That is not justice in my view, but a penalty for being poor.

I have heard the claims that this measure will be a last resort when the debtor has failed to engage over a period, but that overlooks the fact that non-engagement can be a symptom of hardship rather than wrongdoing. Many welfare recipients, including those with mental health conditions and caring responsibilities, find it difficult to navigate the complex bureaucracy of our social security system, and may be unfairly deemed not to have engaged with the DWP.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11.

We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans. When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time.

I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion. This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition.

On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance.

[David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman goes right to the point I tried to make with the Minister. There are 25 NGOs supporting amendment 11. It is almost certain that if we go down this route, it will end up in court. I think the Government will lose on article 8, on the question of individual privacy.

[John McDonnell]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge.

What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs. Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here.

We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House.

Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms. We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors.

As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament.

I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages.

Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives. And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it. That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend refers to workless households. He is absolutely right about the correlation: a child is five time more likely to be in poverty if they are growing up in a workless household. He was right to draw attention to the announcement that has been made today about even greater investment in apprenticeships, and also the change in the way that the apprenticeship levy works so that supply chains can benefit to a greater degree.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

May I join the House in saying happy birthday to the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)? It should be a national holiday as far as I am concerned—perhaps that is an idea for a private Member’s Bill, or something similar.

I am pleased that, since the last questions, we have published our review into autism employment, and I place on record my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) who did such excellent work in bringing that useful report forward.

Looking forward from April, we will see benefits generally rising by 6.7%, the state pension by 8.5%, the national living wage by around 10%, and the next tranche of the household support fund being brought forward. As I have already set out, our plan is working. It means more employment, historically low unemployment and an economic inactivity rate below countries such as the United States, France and Italy.

[Sir David Davis]

The economic inactivity rate is now very high, with 2.8 million people citing long-term sickness as a reason. Some 17 million days of work are lost, at a cost of £13 billion to the economy. Has the Secretary of State seen the Policy Exchange report published today, with policy proposals backed by two of his predecessors, David Blunkett and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)? What steps are the Government taking to improve the provision of workplace health services through occupational health pathways and vocational rehabilitation, and will he consider the 15 proposals in the Policy Exchange report?

[Mel Stride]

I will of course look closely at the report that my right hon. Friend refers to; indeed, I reached out to him recently to invite him to the Department to discuss that and other matters. With regard to long-term sickness and disability, we are working on an array of interventions, including occupational health support within businesses; WorkWell, bringing together medical interventions with work coaches; universal support to help people into work, and to stay in work with that support; and fundamental reform of the work capability assessment, such that the OBR says that 371,000 fewer people will go on to those benefits going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

As the hon. Lady knows, the levy that was introduced is there to support the NHS, particularly in tackling backlogs, but also to support adult social care, and I am sure her constituent could benefit from the outcomes of both. The hon. Lady should also be aware that next month the threshold for national insurance will rise, which will mean that 70% of working households will see a cut in the amount they pay in tax and national insurance.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

T8. This year Government receipts are at a record high, and billions of pounds have rightly been announced in cost of living support. However, for those most in need—people on means-tested benefits—the support is somewhere between £1,000 and £1,200, which is roughly what they lost when the £20 universal credit uplift was withdrawn. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that withdrawing the uplift would put half a million people into poverty. Citizens Advice has estimated that it has caused 2.3 million people to fall into debt. Times were tough during the covid crisis, but they are going to get tougher this year, so will the Minister look at the £20 that has been taken from universal credit, with a view to returning it by the time of the financial statement in the autumn?

[David Rutley]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but it is important to highlight that the £20 uplift to universal credit was only ever a temporary measure to deal with the immediate impact of coronavirus. Since then we have been monitoring the situation and providing the support that is required at particular times, and that has led to the latest package, which totals £37 billion. As I said in other responses, it is vital to highlight that, at a time of record vacancies, there is a responsibility and requirement to help people to tackle poverty by being able to get into the workplace and to progress in employment as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question about why these have all been taken in parallel. I think that it is to give certainty and direction to the country and to employers, particularly when it comes to the operation of the furlough scheme. As I have said before, this is really the time for those employers to get their workers ready again to go back into work, ideally sooner than before the end of September. Thinking about the temporary £20 uplift that was applied to universal credit, I think it is also fair to say that that is not the only way that we have supported people on benefits in the last year. There are also things such as the increase in the local housing allowance rate, which is on a permanent setting in cash terms. Those are the sort of other measures that we have taken, including to help some people on low incomes with the cost of living.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps she is taking to improve the Child Maintenance Service and, in particular, to ensure that children of separated parents get all the money to which they are entitled?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the Child Maintenance Service in what we are trying to do to make sure that children have income coming ideally from both parents during their upbringing and to give them support. My noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scot is actively working on ways to potentially improve aspects of the running of the Child Maintenance Service, which I am sure is something that the whole House will want her to continue to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. As set out earlier, SSP is only part of the wide range of support that could be available, including universal credit, new-style ESA and support through local authorities. It will depend on each individual claimant’s circumstances. Wider SSP was increased as part of the annual uprating. As part of “Health is everyone’s business”, we continue to review the rates, structure and support provided through SSP.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]]

  Over a year ago, one of my constituents had her complaint accepted for investigation by the independent case examiner. Today, she is still waiting for that investigation to start. She is a single parent and is now without universal credit or tax credits for her children. This kind of hardship is often the situation for those taking their cases to the independent case examiner, and the delay is not uncommon. The average time between a complaint being accepted by the examiner and an outcome being provided is a year and a half. That is completely unacceptable, so can the Secretary of State urgently look into the operation of the case examiner and drastically reduce waiting times and ensure that complainants are properly supported throughout the complaints process?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. Within the last year, we have reviewed parts of the complaints process. I am also conscious that my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, who leads on this, has arranged for more resources to go into the independent case examiner. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could share with me or with the noble Baroness the precise details, so that we can investigate what has happened.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is absolutely the case that Access to Work is available and works hand in hand with schemes such as kickstart so that reasonable adjustments can be made for disabled employees. I have written to Disability Confident leaders to encourage them to sign up to kickstart.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

What steps she has taken to support the welfare of people ineligible for the Government’s economic support packages during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

During the pandemic, several economic support measures have been announced by the Chancellor, including supporting the retention of 9.6 million jobs through the furlough scheme. Additionally, 2.2 million individuals have claimed £5.6 billion under the second self-employment income support scheme grant announced by the Chancellor as part of his winter economic plan. The Department has spent £9.3 billion on additional support, including the increase of the universal credit standard allowance by £20 a week. Together, those measures provide a safety net for almost everyone who needs it, but eligibility for the different support packages is set out clearly on gov.uk.

[Mr Davis [V]]

Small businesses account for about 13 million people employed, which is about 60% of the workforce, and many of them are in trouble. When I spoke this weekend to ForgottenLtd, which represents people who are not in receipt of benefit, it told me that its latest survey showed that 70% of its members receive no benefit whatsoever. Do the Government intend to do something about that? If so, will the Minister meet me to discuss the criteria for improvement?

[Will Quince]

I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned hard on the subject. The question may be better directed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Ministers from Her Majesty’s Treasury, as I know he has also done.

Universal credit is an in-work and out-of-work benefit. It is also available for those who are self-employed. As the Secretary of State set out in her letter to the Work and Pensions Committee last month, we plan to proceed with the reinstatement of the minimum income floor, and claimants will be contacted as it is reinstated for them. Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s point, more than £13 billion of support has already been provided for more than 2.6 million self-employed individuals through the first two stages of the self-employment income support scheme and the scheme has now been extended.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

This is one of the issues on my agenda for us to take forward a consistent and coherent approach, recognising the issue of cohabitees and the impact this can have on children. We are working on particular solutions.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

T3. May I take up the Secretary of State on her comment at the beginning on sanctions in the context of coronavirus? Currently, jobseeker’s allowance requires claimants to attend jobcentres in person every two weeks and prove that they have been looking for work—they must show evidence that they have been applying for jobs and going to interviews. Claimants can be sanctioned if they fail to attend the jobcentre, turn down a training course or fail to go to an interview. The Secretary of State said that the sanctions will not be applied if jobcentres are informed in advance, but the process of going through self-isolation may be shocking to the people involved; it may be disorganising what may already be disorganised lives. Can the Secretary of State tell the House that the Department will retain sufficient flexibility to ensure that people will not be punished for doing what the Government recommend?

[Dr Coffey]

I have tried to make clear to the House that people will not be penalised for doing the right thing. It is important that people have that conversation with their work coach. As I emphasised to the House, work coaches can exercise discretion but the important thing is a claimant’s ongoing conversation with their work coach.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

1. What progress her Department has made in improving the appeals process for disability living allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to meet him recently and reassure him that I am committed to looking into this area. I want to do and want my Department to do more to make sure we gather more information earlier so there is less need to go to tribunals and, where there is a need to go tribunals, the amount of time people have to wait is reduced.

[Mr Davis]

I have a constituent, Susan Hatton, with an eight-year-old daughter, Jessica. Jessica suffers from achondroplasia; she cannot wash herself, dress herself or brush her own hair; she frequently falls over, is regularly on concussion watch and wakes up several times every night. Her mother needs help. In August, Jessica’s DLA was withdrawn despite her condition worsening. While an appeal was ongoing, the Department recommended she put in a second claim to hope for a better outcome. Eight months after that, they went to court and the judge said that because the second proposal was in play, he could not answer on the first one. So not only did my constituent have to wait an unduly long time for her appeal to be heard, but she now finds herself facing the entire process over again. Every month’s delay in fixing this problem is another month of deprivation, distress and uncertainty in very young lives. I know the Secretary of State is committed to correcting this problem, but I urge her to spend whatever it takes to do this as quickly as possible.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising such an important case, and I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances he has set out today. I have set up a new process for listening to MPs about particular cases; I now have a surgery open to all MPs about a week after having oral questions, and if he wants to come along and discuss that case, or of course have a separate meeting about it, I will certainly do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

From my former role as Minister for Disabled People, I know that Scottish Ministers had the opportunity to take that forward. We are willing to work with their officials to make that possible if they wish to proceed. The ball is very much in their court.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I declare a family interest in the answer to my question. The undoubted problems with health assessments are causing delays in the appeal process right across the board, not just with PIP and others, but with disability living allowance and mobility allowances. Will the Minister agree to see me and discuss how we can accelerate the process, because some appeals take more than 39 weeks to come to fruition, with the effect that children have to wait over a year before they get their proper allowances?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Minister will agree to see the right hon. Gentleman. It would be extraordinarily reckless and foolhardy to refuse to do so, and I am sure that the Minister would never be reckless or foolhardy.