Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and John Milne

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I must say that I do get a bit edgy when Front Benchers agree so much.

In respect of Lords amendment 84, I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I am aware, it will now be a human being making the decisions: an authorising officer. The authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information—that is what the Minister said—but it is still not clear to me whether a decision can be made simply on the basis of the EVM information. It would therefore be useful if the Government’s intention were read into the record more clearly.

As for Lords amendment 43, I want to follow up on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). We have received representations with regard to, in particular, people suffering from mental health issues, some of whom would be leading chaotic lives. The Minister is right to say that it is not for Ministers to engage in the process of making individual decisions because that is for the authorising officers to do, but the one occasion on which the Minister can be held to account is when the annual independent review takes place.

According to my understanding, the Minister said that the reviewer would not be prevented from exploring the issue of the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. May I suggest that that could be strengthened? Perhaps he will tell us when he responds to the debate. It is not just about prevention; it is appropriate for the independent review to consider that issue, largely because of the representations that we have received consistently throughout our debates on the Bill, and from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and, in particular, mental health challenges. A statement to that effect would be more reassuring than the words that we have heard so far.

I do not really understand why the Government would resist this, because it is just a basic element of accountability in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the House throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment, and, although the last Government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides. In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the Bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary.

I would welcome a clarification from the Minister, or perhaps a strengthening of the words that he has used so far.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Everyone accepts that we need to keep a handle on fraud, but the powers being taken in the Bill, including DWP access to people’s private bank accounts, go much further than anything we have seen in the past. Can we trust the DWP to exercise these sweeping new powers in a fair and responsible way? Unfortunately, past DWP errors have had the most tragic consequences.

Philippa Day was 27 years old when she died. She was found unconscious next to a letter from the DWP refusing her request for an at-home assessment. Philippa had agoraphobia and anxiety, making it impossible for her to attend a personal independence payment assessment in person. Those at the DWP knew that—they were told by her sister, and they would have been told by her mental health team if they had bothered to speak to them, but they did not. The letter by her side was the last of a long back-and-forth exchange with the DWP. During their final conversation about the DWP, Philippa said to her sister, “I’m done trying to fight them.” But why was she having to fight them in the first place? Surely this is a system that was designed to help.

The coroner’s report identified 28 separate failings by the DWP and its private assessor, Capita. Errors were made from the very outset: her PIP claim form was lost, her mental health needs were not logged, and no attempts were made to communicate with her mental health team or her GP to ensure that the very system designed to help her would do just that. It is easy to see, with a system riddled with errors and seemingly devoid of compassion, how someone could be driven to just give up the fight. Philippa wrote:

“I’m not dying because I’m suicidal... I’ve been so trapped for so long, and then comes along the government people, who I had assumed are there to help. Since January the 11th 2019 my benefits have been severely cut”.

I also want to share with the House what happened to Kristie Hunt. Kristie was training to become a nurse. She was 31. She had been on PIP and employment and support allowance until she rejoined the workforce after 13 years—admirable, considering her struggles with mental health. She, like Philippa, was basically a strong person.

Kristie informed the DWP about her return to employment, but staff forgot to log her call, so Kristie was hounded by calls and letters from the counter-fraud team. The DWP even sent incorrect information to her local council, resulting in further letters and threats of losing her home. For months, Kristie was subjected to erroneous accusations of fraud and threats of losing her flat and the life she had fought so hard to build back. On her final call with the DWP, she was noted as being confused and tearful, yet no one even asked whether she was okay. No one flagged concerns for her welfare. All they wanted was the money.

Kristie is an example of a person using the system that was designed to support her back into work, but was instead the victim of mistake after mistake. There are many others I could describe: Karen McBride, Stephen Carré, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodey Whiting, Roy Curtis and James Oliver. All of them were wrongly hounded by the DWP, which at least contributed to their deaths.

It does not reassure me that part of the name of this Bill starts with “Fraud”, when the biggest cause of overpayment is departmental error. The DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes. That is a cultural failing, and it is wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward. Do the Government really believe that this Bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants? One thing is for sure: there will be more DWP mistakes.

Going forward, I would ask that the Government commit to making coroners’ reports automatically available to the public in every case where there is a link to the DWP’s actions.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and John Milne

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.

What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.

With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.

Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.

New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”

In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.

The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.

Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.

I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.

Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.

Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.

I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.