Budget Resolutions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should.
The other point to make is about inflation. If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about.
There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well. That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare—[Interruption.] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not.
We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear—[Interruption.] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say. The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country.
When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals—[Interruption.] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers.
There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time:
“That for he who has, then that must be taken away.
For he who has not, then to him must be given.”
That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement.
For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished. An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.
Pat McFadden
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s request for more public expenditure and I am coming on to the growth and skills levy in a moment. What we will do with that is tilt it more towards young people and towards more short courses, and this Budget puts a further £725 million into that, which will enable the full funding of apprenticeships for the under 25s for small businesses. That is good for young people and good for employers. It is important, because no matter where they are from, what their background is or who their parents are, every young person should have the chance to make the most of their life. I want the country’s young people to know that through our youth guarantee, the apprenticeship support and the other measures outlined in the Budget and outside it, we will support them, we believe in them and we want them to succeed.
Even after that, I know that we need to go further, and that is why I have asked former Health Secretary Alan Milburn to report in the new year on the issues of young people, work and inactivity, looking across departmental boundaries and recommending policy responses that will offer young people more opportunity and a better chance in life.
After the Conservatives either neglected all that or opposed that which they did not neglect, what have they got left? Arguing that instead of our approach, people’s wages should be lower. We saw where that led during the last Parliament. The shadow Chancellor talked about living standards—during the last Parliament, living standards declined more than at any time in living memory. Now living standards are rising in this Parliament and wages have risen more in a matter of months than they did in 10 years when the shadow Chancellor’s party was in office.
As people sometimes remind me, I have been around for quite a while. I am proud to have served in the last Labour Government, which lifted 600,000 children out of poverty—and almost all the measures delivered were opposed by the Conservative party. In fact, the Conservatives’ record was a rise in child poverty of 900,000. Their argument was that the two-child limit would force people to make different choices about the number of children that they would have, but that is not what happened; it simply forced more children into poverty.
The real indictment goes deeper, because, as the right hon. Member for Central Devon knows, the two-child limit was not really a welfare policy at all. In the end, it was not even about saving the money. The truth is that it was about political dividing lines. It was a device used by the Conservative Government, in which children were the weapon of choice. That is what it was about, but not any more. Tackling child poverty is an investment in the future of those children and in the country, because children who do not grow up living in poverty will have a better life. This policy is not just about the distribution of money; it is an investment in opportunity. That is why the Chancellor announced the abolition of the two-child limit in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said, the clear majority of households that will gain from this measure already have someone in work. The policy will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and that number will rise, thanks to other measures, such as the expansion of free school meals, help with energy bills, and the expansion of free childcare so that more parents can take up work.
This will be the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. As the Chancellor spelled out, it can be funded by a combination of tackling fraud and error in the system, the Motability and other changes, and the changes to online gambling taxation that she announced yesterday.
We understand that the health and welfare systems are deeply connected, so we will continue to get waiting lists down, and to treat more patients. We announced 250 new neighbourhood health centres in the Budget. Waiting lists and waiting times rocketed when the Conservatives were in office, and that was not just a health issue; it was an economic and benefits issue. A system that treats people more quickly, rather than having them wait in pain, is good for the economy, too. Through the reforms that we are making on incentives and support in the system, and on opportunity and tackling poverty, we are beginning to change the welfare state from a passive distributor of benefits to a platform of opportunities to get people back into work. However, we need to go further, and we will.
No one on the Labour Benches underestimates the scale of the challenges we face. There is no escaping the fact that the OBR’s decision to downgrade its assessment of productivity is the official verdict on the Conservatives’ years in office. They left this Chancellor with a £16 billion hole to fill. That hole is not because of the decisions she took, but because of the scarring effects of the Conservatives’ time in power. A botched Brexit deal, austerity that impoverished the public realm, and cuts to capital investment—the OBR is clear that they all caused long-term damage to the UK’s productivity and economic growth. That has to be owned by the Conservatives.
The shadow Chancellor attacked the Budget in the strongest terms, and he is right that it is a contrast with the Conservatives’ record, because they took the country to the very precipice of economic disaster. They used the British public as a test bed for a giant ideological experiment that saw mortgages go through the roof. The Bank of England had to launch an emergency rescue package for the country’s pension system. The Conservatives shook international confidence in the UK economy and destroyed whatever economic credibility they had by their own hand. There is a difference in our approaches—a very welcome one.
We have trade agreements with the world’s biggest economic powers—agreements that eluded the Conservatives. We have a reformed planning system, which will get the country building. Public investment is at its highest level for four decades, and inflation is coming down faster, as a result of the measures that we are taking. It will come down by a full 0.4 percentage points next year, according to the OBR. Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast. We are keeping corporation tax at the lowest level of any G7 country. We have help for high streets, and permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 businesses. We are doubling eligibility for our enterprise tax incentives, so that new businesses can not only be created, but can grow and scale up here in the United Kingdom.
We are cutting energy costs for 7,000 businesses to make manufacturing more competitive. We are providing help with the cost of living through the first rail fare freeze for 30 years. We are freezing prescription charges. Energy bills are being cut by £150 per year. We are raising the national minimum wage for millions of workers, as recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. We are expanding free breakfast clubs, and there are free school meals for all children in families on universal credit.
This is a Budget for the whole country. It helps with living standards and helps people to meet their monthly bills. It fixes some of the problems of the past, and gives the country strong foundations for the future. It is a Budget that believes in maintaining the public square, and it continues the progress that we have made on the NHS. That progress is, for us, not just a social goal, but an economic goal. It is a Budget that protects the state pension and raises its value by £575 next year. It is a Budget that continues with welfare reforms, reduces child poverty and offers hope to young people for the future. That is the difference, and that is why we should support the Budget today.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I came to this House determined to speak up for the people I represent, particularly those who feel under pressure, children whose life chances are held back, and 1,500 former mineworkers. In my maiden speech, I spoke about our proud mining heritage. When I made that speech, this Labour Government had just delivered justice for members of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme and, just over a year later, I am immensely proud that the same has been done for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. These former mineworkers, who built the communities that I am proud to represent and helped to power our nation, had to wait far too long to even be heard, so I commend this Government on righting this historical wrong, but even more so all those campaigners on never giving up. The action taken by this Government will mean a 41% boost to the pensions of 40,000 former mineworkers.
Turning to the cost of living, we have taken action to reduce energy bills by taking 75% of the renewables obligation off bills, and the energy company obligation will be scrapped as well, saving my constituents an average of £150 a year. That saving will be added to by the first freeze to rail fares in 30 years, the continued freeze on prescription charges and the £89 that they will not have to pay on fuel duty.
As the Chancellor said, one policy above all has supressed the life chances of children in the most deprived households and neighbourhoods in our country: the two-child benefit cap. Scrapping it will lift 2,430 children in my constituency out of poverty. Contrary to the stereotypes often peddled by Opposition Members, almost 60% of the families who will benefit from this change are in work. While the cost of scrapping the limit is £3.5 billion, the cost of child poverty is £39 billion. Behind that staggering sum are life chances blighted and immense talent that our country is missing out on. Along with expanding free school meals, increasing the minimum wage, introducing Best Start family hubs and introducing apprenticeships that do not cost small businesses, these changes will ensure that all children and young people have the best start in life.
Finally, another matter close to the hearts of many in my constituency and county is growth in rural communities. Many people in rural towns and villages have felt left behind by successive Governments, and that is particularly true in the world of farming, which often feels far removed from the corridors of Whitehall. This Government deserve great credit for the biggest farming budget in history and for getting money out of the door, something that the Conservative party failed to do.
However, while visiting farms in my constituency, I have heard repeatedly that changes to agricultural property relief are hanging over many farmers and their families, and supressing confidence. The personal impact of that was brought home to me when I sat down with a couple in their mid-80s, 15th generation livestock farmers in my constituency, who told me about farming families that they know being affected by mental ill health, particularly among elderly farmers. They told me that they feel paralysed in the face of these changes, not knowing if there is a way to ensure that their farm has a 16th generation.
The changes are holding back growth in the agricultural sector, as many are not investing in new machinery or rapidly advancing technologies. However, following concerted efforts by many Labour Members, we have the change that will enable spouses to transfer their allowance to a surviving partner. That will take some farmers out of inheritance tax and will reduce the bills of many others, so it is welcome.
Looking ahead, I am encouraged by the Government’s relentless focus on farm profitability and changes to the planning system, which will free up farmers to get on with the things that help their businesses and infrastructure and the environment. Baroness Batters’ review, due to be published next month, will be critical in charting a path to more profitable farming, and I and many Labour Members will engage with it keenly. Rural Britain is ready and willing to make a greater contribution to the vital mission of growing the economy and ensuring that the benefits are felt in every corner of our country.
Yesterday’s Budget made it clear that there will be no return to austerity or short-termism. It rectifies the injustices of the past for members of the BCSSS. It acts right now, in the present, to cut the cost of living, and it safeguards Britain’s future. This is a Budget that keeps us on the path to renew Britain and improve life for people in the towns and villages I represent in Cannock Chase, so I very much welcome it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will start speeches by the Front Benchers at 4.40 pm. With the remaining time, I call Phil Brickell.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget. It will improve the lives of my constituents by putting £150 back into the pockets of working people through removing levies on energy bills and by lifting 2,570 children out of poverty. This is a Budget with fairness at its core; it reduces child poverty, has more funding for the NHS and has more investment in school libraries. After the chaos of the 2022 Truss mini-Budget, the Chancellor has shown what real fiscal discipline looks like: inflation falling, growth prioritised and proper headroom restored.
I am particularly pleased that the Chancellor has stared down the sloganeers at both extremes. She has rejected the failed trickle-down instincts of the populist right, which bequeathed this Government with a legacy of failed austerity and profligate wasting of taxpayers’ money on dodgy PPE contracts during the pandemic. She has also dismissed unevidenced calls from the left-wing populists for a wealth tax, when it has no answers to the hard questions about capital flight, offshore assets or our overburdened enforcement agencies. All the while, she has increased the burden on those with the broadest shoulders, including via the new high-value council tax surcharge on homes valued at more than £2 million, ensuring that homeowners in mansions are not paying less in council tax than someone living in a mid-terrace in Blackrod.
I thank the Chancellor for heeding my calls by introducing new measures to tackle high street tax dodging and organised crime. The National Crime Agency estimates that some £12 billion in criminal cash is generated in the UK every year, including in the suspicious vape shops we have all clocked while walking round our constituencies. Those suspect enterprises not only erode the civic pride we have in our high streets, but undercut genuine businesses looking to provide a service and make ends meet. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to a cross-Government taskforce to tackle tax abuse and money laundering on our high streets, backed by £50 million every year over the next three years, which is funded by an increase in the economic crime levy paid for by the banks and other professional services firms. That is despite the platitudes from Lib Dem Members saying that banks are not being asked to pay more, when actually they are.
I will bring the issue of tax dodging on our high streets to life with an example of just how egregious some of these wheezes truly are. In the brief time that I have, let me talk a little about the world of snails—snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and snail cannibalism. London Centric’s Jim Waterson recently published an investigative report on this topic. It details how former Lancashire shoe salesman, Terry Ball, runs elaborate snail-based tax avoidance schemes that are costing councils millions of pounds simply by placing boxes of snails in vacant office buildings in an attempt to exempt them from business rates.
The scheme, perfected over many years to prevent the snails from eating one another and stop mass snail fornication, allows unscrupulous individuals to claim that empty warehouses are being used for agricultural purposes. In turn, landlords are granted a business rates exemption. If the firms in question are challenged by the local council, they are simply liquidated. They hold no assets, so no business rates can be claimed back, and they magically reappear under the guise of another mollusc-based enterprise registered at Companies House—it is taking shell companies to the extreme.
One local council has reported a loss of £370,000 in tax receipts just because of this specific mollusc-based wheeze. This is not just a quirky anecdote; it is a hard-edged example of how loopholes in our system are being exploited, made all the easier by the Tories’ decision in the last Parliament to abolish the Office of Tax Simplification. Indeed, the very same council is reporting losses of £10 million a year due to non-payment of business rates.
I welcome the further steps announced by the Chancellor yesterday, such as rewards for informants of high-value tax fraud, extra funding for trading standards, enhancing tax transparency on real estate, 350 new criminal investigators to tackle fraud and illicit tobacco and vapes, and a boost to HMRC to go after tax dodgers and their unscrupulous advisers. We need to do a lot more, but I commend the Chancellor. I urge her to continue in the same vein by reforming reliefs, strengthening enforcement and sending a message that Britain no longer tolerates tax gimmicks—whether involving snails, shell companies, or slimy advisers.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 5 November 2025 - (5 Nov 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 2
Interaction with other public authorities etc
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 97, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121.
Andrew Western
The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services, eroding trust and harming innocent people. The Bill introduces new powers to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside of the tax and social security system, using its expertise to act on behalf of other parts of Government.
The Bill also contains new powers for the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle fraud and error within the social security system, providing much-needed modernisation for our defences. At the same time, it includes significant safeguards, including new independent oversight to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. As we now reach the final stages of the Bill, I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible, so that we can realise the delivery of the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective.
This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill.
I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money.
Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals.
Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities.
We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness.
As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill.
Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that
“This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”,
but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.
In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted.
Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the Government for the steps taken to improve the Bill since it was debated in Committee. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns about elements of the Bill, but it is in a much better place, and I thank all colleagues for working together collaboratively to drive for improvements.
Clearly, fraud is wrong. Some people believe that fraud against large organisations such as supermarkets and the Government is a victimless crime, but if we do not have that money, because it has been fraudulently claimed, we have to apply larger taxes or choose not to spend money on things such as tackling climate change. It is therefore important that it is tackled, but we need to ensure that we have two words guiding us: proportionality and fairness. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns that elements of the Bill are not as proportionate as one would wish.
I will focus my remarks on Lords amendment 43. We Liberal Democrats feel that more responsibility should be given to the independent reviewer in relation to proportionality and fairness. We still have concerns about the blanket approach, where mass fishing will effectively occur with the proposals before us. One does not have to look that far back in recent IT history to see where things have gone wrong. I believe it was only last week that child benefit was frozen for 23,500 households across the United Kingdom, because those families left the country and were not accounted for when they returned. That error was made on a computer system, and that affected just a small proportion of those to whom this Bill is set to be applied.
The reasonableness of Ministers was debated repeatedly in Committee. I am not questioning the reasonableness of the current Minister, or multiple Ministers who preceded him, but I question what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power in the Oval Office. What may be seen as “reasonable” in politics in the United Kingdom is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America. We must ensure that we guard against that future in the legislation we are putting forward now.
On the use of force, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have taken a step in the right direction in their amendment, although we feel that it could be stronger. We would encourage colleagues to vote against the Government’s proposals, because we strongly support Lords amendment 43.
Kirsty Blackman
It is not easy to follow that excellent speech. I really appreciate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) reading out the names of people who have been failed by the system that was meant to support them—and we should remember that the system is what failed them. As he said, in a number of cases they were incredibly strong people who had fought through adversity but were then failed by the system. A significant number of disabled people have had to fight for so much of what they have. They have had to fight every day just to manage to get to work or get to the shop. They have had to fight for so much, and the system that is meant to support them should not then be another battleground.
I want to talk about a number of different things in the Bill, but I will start with the fact that this is not a happy Bill and the SNP does not support it. We are unhappy with a significant proportion of the Bill’s direction of travel, such as on the eligibility verification, not least because of the potential future risks. I said to the Conservatives when they were in government, and I will say again now that the Labour party is in government, that you will not be in government for ever. At some point, somebody else will be in government, and if it is somebody who shares the authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, I am not sure that I want them to have access to everybody’s bank accounts.
We need to look at the proportionality of accessing universal credit claimants’ bank accounts to see if they are committing fraud. I wonder what proportion of universal credit claimants defraud the system, compared with the proportion of billionaires who defraud His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and do not pay the level of tax that they should be paying. I do not think it is proportionate for us to say that universal credit claimants need to have their bank accounts looked at because they are likely to commit fraud, whereas people who earn millions and millions of pounds and store it in offshore trusts do not have exactly the same constraints put on all the many bank accounts that they may have.
It is disproportionate for us to assume that social security claimants are more likely to defraud the system than anyone else, especially given that we have significant levels of proof that other people do defraud the system and that a significant number of the errors made—through overpayments, for example—are made by DWP itself, rather than by the claimants. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) talked about elements of Lords amendment 43 and vulnerable individuals who may be disadvantaged. If we could trust that DWP never or very rarely makes mistakes, I could understand the Government putting forward this Bill. From the written-down facts in coroner’s reports, and from all our constituency casework, we know that DWP makes mistakes. I am not blaming individuals at DWP for making those mistakes; there are sometimes systemic failures and sometimes individual failures. Mistakes are made at DWP, and adding both another layer of places where it can make mistakes and a further ability to sanction people—for example, by taking their car away or looking at their bank accounts—will not be proportionate until DWP is much less likely to make mistakes and to greatly overpay carers, for example, and then attempt to claw back the money. The Government need to get the Department in order before taking action against individuals. I understand that there are people who defraud the system—I am not doubting for a second that that is the case—but, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, putting the word “error” first might have been helpful, given that a significant proportion of the money that is overpaid is due to error.
I turn to the costs and savings mentioned in Lords amendment 43, on how much it costs to recoup money and to undertake an investigation in order to see whether somebody is defrauding the system. We know that a school meal debt system was set up, and we have had bailiffs at people’s doors looking for under £10 of school meal debt. Sending a bailiff to somebody’s door for under £10 involves a disproportionate cost, and I hope that everybody in this room thinks that we should not be spending so much money, and upsetting somebody’s life that much, for the sake of £10. If a person cannot afford to pay £10 of school meal debt, they have pretty significant problems, and sending a bailiff to their door is not going to help. We only know about some of these bailiff situations because they have been brought to MPs, or because they have been reported by various organisations. Aberlour Children’s Charity has done a huge amount of amazing work on public sector debt and some of the methods that are used to recoup that money. The Government should have to report whether it costs a disproportionate amount for us to ensure that we are not paying out a very small amount. I think it is completely reasonable for that question to be asked.
I think it is completely reasonable as well—the hon. Member for Poole talked about this—to think about vulnerable groups and whether they are overly disadvantaged by the system being put in place. Will people with learning difficulties, specific mental conditions and physical disabilities, and those from certain minority communities that are already marginalised, for example Gypsy Travellers, be specifically disadvantaged by the changes? All Lords amendment 43 asks is for reporting to ensure that those vulnerabilities, if there is an entrenchment of inequality and an increase in the disadvantage faced by people, are reported on, so we aware of it and there is transparency, and so we can see that it is creating a significant additional disadvantage on an already vulnerable and marginalised community. I would therefore really appreciate it if the Government agreed, rather than disagreed, with Lords amendment 43.
Finally on Lords amendment 43, the amount of money proposed to be saved by the Bill in its entirety—the total amount of savings—is, I understand, £1.5 billion. Governments of all colours are monumentally bad at reporting back on how much savings have been achieved by any of the measures they put in place on just about anything. Unless a tax is hypothecated, for example, we do not see exactly how much money is saved or exactly how much money is spent, and whether it delivered what was promised by the Government. Again, it is Governments of all colours who do not do post-implementation reviews in the right amount of time, and when there is a change of Government they sometimes just forget that post-implementation reviews exist. We will not know with any level of accuracy, unless we get proper reports on costs and savings, exactly how much money is saved and whether the Government have met their target or expected amount of £1.5 billion, so I have significant concerns.
I appreciate the Minister’s answer to me on Lords amendment 84. I had not understood what he had said originally on his position on Lords amendment 84 and the answer he gave me in response did clarify his position. I do not agree with his position, but I now understand why the Government hold that position. I still think it would be important to ensure there are things in place other than the EVM. I understand the Government want a little bit more flexibility and that they are saying they have to look at all the other information they hold. It is possible that the DWP may not hold any more information or may hold very little more information. Therefore, the decision to initiate a fraud investigation could be taken almost entirely, if not completely entirely, on the EVM. That is why I still disagree with the Minister’s position.
I would like a requirement for the DWP to have more than just that one piece of information. My understanding is that that was what Lords amendment 84 intended to do in the first place, but I appreciate that other amendments in lieu have been tabled by the Government to provide a little more clarity on what is expected. I would expect them to look at all the information provided, as the Minister said. I am just concerned that they may not hold lots of information, and a requirement to look at all the information they hold when they only hold one piece of information gets us back to the situation we were in at the beginning, where it could hinge on one thing rather than looking at a wider suite of things.
Generally speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will sit down in just a moment—the SNP is not in favour of the Bill. We have significant concerns. If the Minister, when he responds, confirmed that the Government will do as much as they can on transparency, and that they will report back on the level of costs and savings that are created by the Bill, that would give me a measure of comfort. I still will not support the Bill, and I might still vote against some of the amendments tabled today, but I think it would make Members from across the House a bit more comfortable to have a better understanding of what is happening and whether the Bill is working as the Government intend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Andrew Western
I begin by thanking the Members who have contributed for what were thoughtful contributions, even where we fundamentally disagree on aspects of the Bill.
I have already outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach, but I will respond briefly to some of the specific points made in the debate. First, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both Houses have engaged on the Bill. She is correct that we have ended up in a better place, and I thank her and all Members who fed into that process—that is the point of it. I am pleased with where we have ended up.
The hon. Lady asked two specific questions. I can confirm that there will be a take-note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced, at the point when statutory guidance is laid before Parliament. I can also confirm that Members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent reviewer.
I will briefly touch on some of the points surrounding Lords amendment 43, which has taken up the majority of the debate. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Horsham (John Milne) and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).
First, I think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the Bill or in amendments that have come forward today. On the question of costs, for instance, the independent reviewer already has to look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force.
I will turn to the question of vulnerable people, which the hon. Member for Horsham in particular illustrated very eloquently indeed, with moving examples. I want to say something specifically on debanking, which is a concern that has been raised multiple times throughout the stages of the Bill. We are very clear that nobody—vulnerable or otherwise—should be debanked as a result of the Bill, as was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today. There are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes. On vulnerable people, Lords amendment 82 clarifies that the use of the power must be “necessary and proportionate”, which I believe would cover this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a specific point on whether EVM information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation; we must consider all other relevant information. Practically, that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or for any other reason that someone may have capital in excess of £16,000—the limit—before taking any action.
However, as I said earlier, I do think that this Bill is much improved from where we started.
Welfare Spending
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am going to make a bit more progress.
We have seen what happens when social security is not managed properly. We have seen the consequences for child poverty and for the many thousands denied the opportunity to work—people who want to work, and who could work, with the right support. We are taking action now to give people the best chances in life, so that they can support themselves and their family. We are delivering on our plan to make work pay, including by removing the work disincentives from universal credit. We are joining up support, so that people get proper help into work. We are giving children and young people the best possible start in life and are setting them up to succeed in future. Unlike the previous Government, we are not resigned to failure. We are investing in success, in work, in health, and in skills support to provide hope for a better future. We are actively helping people along their own path to work, and creating an opportunity welfare state. We have made a great start, but there is a huge amount still to do, and I welcome this chance to seek the House’s support for our mission.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Luke Akehurst.
Kirsty Blackman
No, thank you.
What we should be doing in the Budget and in the child poverty strategy is talking about how the welfare system should support people and about how the welfare system fails to support people. I wish the Minister for Social Security and Disability well in his work co-producing his report, but the welfare system is currently broken, and that is not because the costs are spiralling out of control. The welfare system is currently broken because people are being demonised simply for claiming enough to live on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the shadow Minister.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman—or, for Sir Roger, Mr Chairman—are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Standard allowance for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.”
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section, so far as it relates to tax years up to and including 2027-28, comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2028-29, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2027, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2029-30, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(12) Regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2028, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment provides for separate decisions by the House of Commons on the continued effect of Clause 1 for the final two tax years affected.
Amendment 50, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section comes into force when the conditions in section [Commencement requirements relating to welfare reform] have been met.”
This amendment makes the commencement of Clause 1 conditional on the requirements relating to welfare reform set out in NC12.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In the table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (amounts of elements)—
(a) before the row showing the amount for limited capability for work and work-related activity (“the existing row”) insert—
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard.
The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security.
I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will speak to my amendment 2(b) and the amendments associated with it. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I thank the Bill Committee Clerks for their invaluable advice and amendment-drafting expertise. I thank the dozens of disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, academics and think-tanks who provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee’s “Pathways to Work” inquiry. I also acknowledge the Clerks team, and in particular the deputy Clerk, who led that inquiry. The role of Select Committees in improving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be overestimated.
As I said last week, there is general recognition that the social security system needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts to the support for vulnerable people. There are many positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper that will have a significant positive impact on people’s lives, and that will help people into work, and to stay in work.
However, there is also evidence of the impact other Departments will have on getting and keeping Britain working. Increasing NHS capacity and the funding allocation to areas of high health need will have a direct and positive impact on health status, participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in those areas. The 2018 “Health for Wealth” report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting that at areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3% and increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year. However, although we have launched the NHS 10-year plan, which contains many positive measures, the additional targeted NHS capacity will not come on stream until April next year.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Darling
The Access to Work system has been here for years, and it continues to be broken. The Government could easily fix it, but they are choosing not to roll up their sleeves and engage in sorting it out now. Constituents have told me that they have almost lost their jobs because of what is going on here and now. We also need answers from the carers allowance review. Many pieces of the jigsaw must be in place before we push forward with these proposals.
Let me emphasise that this is a broken system, and we should not proceed until we have heard from that Timms review. We should not be abandoning some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment, and if that is lost, we will vote against the second motion. We cannot help those who are already broken by breaking a system.
Winter Fuel Payment
Judith Cummins Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deirdre Costigan
Will the shadow Minister be honest with the House, and honest with pensioners: how many would be affected, and by how much, by the means-testing of the state pension, to which the Leader of the Opposition is committed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure the Member understands that the shadow Minister is always honest. Perhaps she would like to clarify what she has just said.
Deirdre Costigan
I ask the shadow Minister to be straight with the House, as she asked the Minister to be.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is two strikes. Again, I ask the hon. Member please to clarify her question.
Torsten Bell
I will return to the Conservatives’ policy, because I was just coming to the bold plans set out by the Leader of the Opposition to means-test the state pension. Apparently, she said,
“that’s exactly the sort of thing”
we “will look at.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that it is up to the Member on his feet to decide whether to take interventions?
Welfare Reform
Judith Cummins Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am hoping to try to get everybody in, but I will be finishing the statement at around 2.30 pm. Please help each other by keeping questions and answers short.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment today to protecting with dignity those who cannot work because they are so severely disabled or because of illness. There are many sick and disabled people who can work with the right support, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will get the support they need to get into work to build a better life for them and their families?
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Hundreds of disabled people in my constituency want to work, but they often face absolute poverty pay and feel that they would be better off on benefits. On average, disabled workers are paid £2.35 an hour, or £4,300 a year, less than other workers. How will Labour’s commitment in the King’s Speech to a new equality Bill ensure that disabled workers will finally receive equal pay at work, and can choose a good job over being—
Liz Kendall
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that today we launched a consultation on equality pay gap reporting, and I hope that that will make a huge difference.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
If we do indeed believe in the social model of disability described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), may I encourage the Secretary of State, and indeed everyone, to find a different language in which to talk about this? When we describe disabled people as being unable to work, we ignore the fact that most disabled adults are in work, while many of those who are not are desperate to get into work but are held back by low pay and lack of opportunities. Can we look again at Access to Work to ensure that the largest and most profitable employers are bearing more of the costs of adequate—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that there are a great many more for me to get in? I ask them please to help each other, and keep the questions and answers short.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right: there are more disabled people in work than ever before, and we need to recognise that and go further. We are launching a consultation on Access to Work to ensure that more people are able to secure that vital support, and that it goes to the right place at the right time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I think I will get everybody in at this rate, thank you.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently held a child poverty roundtable in my constituency, and one of the issues raised repeatedly was that many people who want to work find themselves worse off when they lose benefits and find themselves pushed into hardship. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents that under these changes they will be better off in work and will no longer be penalised for wanting to improve their life’s circumstances and those of their families?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend, as always, speaks passionately about her constituency and the need to make sure that the support for people who can work is there, but also that we protect those who cannot. I would say that every case needs to be judged on an individual basis, and we will make sure that that happens.
I say to the House, and to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, that I know many people would have wanted to ask more questions and to say more, but my door is always open. We want and need to get this right, and we will have more debates about this, but if any hon. Member on either side of the House wants to contact me with more questions, I and the team will do everything we can to address those openly, honestly and quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The final question from the Back Benches will come from Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think we all know that the current system is not only broken, but unsustainable. I welcome her focus on supporting the long-term unemployed, and I would point to some good examples of the work we are doing in my constituency. However, would she agree that we need to support those constituents in Harlow, many with severe disabilities, who cannot work, and end this merry-go-round of constant reassessment?
Liz Kendall
Madam Deputy Speaker, you were saving the best till last, as always, with my hon. Friend.
We absolutely will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. I do not want to see them having to go through deeply worrying reassessments, and we want to put that right. For people in Harlow who can work but have been denied such opportunities, we will fix the broken system, tackle the perverse incentives left us by the Conservatives, and give people the hope and opportunity that there are better days ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just to let Members know that about 100 Members have asked questions on the statement.
Dr Caroline Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked a question during the statement, the Secretary of State said, “It does not mean that.” I had raised the list on the Government’s website of the descriptors used to qualify somebody for a certain number of points in relation to the daily living component of PIP. Each of the descriptors I mentioned has two or three points associated with it:
“Needs supervision…or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes…3.5 hours a week. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath…3 points … Needs supervision…to be able to manage toilet needs. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body”—
needing the physical help of another person—also
“2 points.”
At the moment, someone with all of those needs would qualify for this component of PIP, but under her new rules they will not. How can I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has got her point on the record.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 3rd February 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In Bassetlaw, most people work hard all their lives, pay their dues and want to live comfortably. They keep themselves to themselves, whether in Worksop, Harworth, Retford or the villages, but what unites them in anger is the known benefit fraudster who lives down the street. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the rage, the sense of injustice and grievance that benefit fraud is happening on their doorstep, and that nothing seems to be done about it.
With billions of pounds of public money lost last year, we welcome this Bill in Bassetlaw. At long last, it is the start of real action against the fraudsters and those milking the system, whether they are workshy or feeding the coffers of organised crime. This legislation will give the DWP new anti-fraud powers, for the first time since the Tony Blair years, bringing it into the digital age.
I welcome the new search and seizure powers, bringing the DWP into line with HMRC’s investigative powers—seizing luxury goods, bags of cash and mobile phones to use as evidence of fraud, and taking active control of investigations into the criminal gangs that are defrauding the taxpayer. If that means raids, let it crack on.
I welcome the new, stronger powers to pursue those who receive money that they are not entitled to. Where they refuse outright to repay, it is right that their driving licence should be removed. Banks and building societies flagging fraud, such as long-term trips abroad or wages going into an account while benefits are also being claimed, is also welcome.
Although the Government will at last be tough on fraud, the new powers will include strong safeguards to ensure that they are used appropriately, protecting the vulnerable and the sick. The message from today is that if you are living off the wages of fraud, we are coming to get you. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
That is why I back the Bill’s additional measure to pursue those who ripped us off during covid, including the previous Government’s greedy friends who grabbed the PPE contracts and the fake company owners who took the business loans. We will not allow time limitations to act as a barrier. We want our money back and the thieves jailed, and we want anyone who lined the pockets of their mates to feel the long arm of the law.
I cannot abide the thought of my constituents’ hard-earned money funding the luxury lifestyles of the fraudsters. Labour is the party of working people, and this Bill puts our values into action. This Bill is all about fraud. It is the start, not the end, of stamping out corruption, insider dealing and the defrauding of those who strive and save by working hard. This is the start of resetting broken Britain.
Mr Charters
As I will come to, it is about the advanced techniques that these fraud gangs are using. It is industrial-level criminal activity.
Last year, £7 billion was cheated out of taxpayers’ pockets, and we have been left to clean it up. If we had that cash, we could have funded extra police officers or vital repairs to some of our hospitals. Frankly, it would also have made it easier to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party, wherever its Members are.
I now turn to a few concrete examples of why this Bill matters. First, on the economics, the Bill is expected to save £1.5 billion over the next few years. These are not insignificant sums of money. It is important to stress that the public purse is not an endless pot, and the contributions of millions of working people across the country, including many of my constituents in York Outer, help to fund it. They want to see taxpayers’ money being spent wisely. Stealing benefits is not just fraud; it is a slap in the face to the hard-working taxpayers who fund our public services. This Bill changes that.
The Bill is not just about keeping more taxpayers’ cash in the Treasury. As Brits, we embody the values of kindness, decency and fairness. Although we are rightly outraged about criminals circumventing our system, we all want a reliable welfare state for the people who truly need it. Every £1 stolen by benefit fraud gangs is £1 less for a low-income single parent looking for a job on universal credit, £1 less for a disabled person on the higher rate of PIP, and £1 less for someone on carer’s allowance. In many cases, these payments are a lifeline for people getting back to work. At the moment, this cash is going to criminals rather than carers.
I now turn to a few recent cases of organised benefit fraud to elucidate the scale of the challenge we face. All have been settled and are now in the public domain following prosecutions.
In May 2024, we saw the largest benefit fraud case in history. The operation saw five Bulgarian nationals forge thousands of documents to make thousands of fraudulent universal credit claims to the value of £50 million.
In October 2023, seven people were sentenced for falsely claiming employment support allowance. They used advanced techniques to hijack identities, resulting in the crime group stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds.
An investigation by City of London police in 2020 saw enforcement against a benefit fraud ring to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I take a brief moment to praise the excellent work of our law enforcement agencies, including City of London police, who I have met, for their collaboration. That is exactly how the last fraud ring was closed. This example shows the benefit of public-private partnerships, which this Bill seeks to catalyse, in tackling benefit fraud,
What do these cases have in common? The benefit fraud was actually a predicate to other illicit activities. They demonstrate the need to upgrade our response, and this Bill represents additional lines of defence in our rising to the challenges we need to fix. Some of the measures in this Bill will do exactly that: supporting covid-era fraud investigations; strengthening the PSFA by establishing it as a separate entity; giving the PSFA powers to compel evidence and enter premises with a warrant; extending the time limit to bring action against historical fraud to 12 years; and granting extra powers for recovering money.
I recently visited the national economic crime centre at the National Crime Agency, and I know the scale of the challenges we face when it comes to tackling fraudsters. I have no doubt that, with this Bill, the Government will smash the benefit fraud gangs, but we must also acknowledge that this Bill represents a significant shift for the financial industry. It is a step into a new dawn for those in the banks who work on tackling economic crime, as they will be spending more time tackling benefit fraud.
It is right that the Government are pursuing a growth-first strategy, which has to be carefully balanced with the economic crime plan. The Financial Conduct Authority’s new consumer duty was an important stride forward for the industry, and I was proud to play a small role in that, but, as scrutiny of the Bill continues, I warmly invite Ministers to engage with the FCA and report back to the House on how the new powers will carefully balance consumer vulnerability with the need to drive down benefit fraud.
Finally, there is an important scenario that must be considered more carefully as the Bill progresses in this place. A victim of domestic abuse—let us call her “Jane”—is quietly saving money to escape, but then an account information notice is issued. Based on three months of bank statements, a debt recovery notice follows. Jane has 28 days to appeal, but no access to legal advice. Worse still, her abuser intercepts the letter and her savings, which are her lifeline to escape, are seized. Her escape plan is exposed, putting her at risk. We must ensure that financial processes do not accidentally or invertedly work against victims of domestic abuse in those scenarios, as I am sure Ministers are aware.
To close, the Prime Minister said in a speech at a recent Labour party conference:
“If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud”.
When it comes to tackling organised crime groups, not only is he right, but the Bill is proof he is delivering on his promise. The Bill is about smashing the benefit fraud gangs, treating taxpayers’ money fairly and ensuring we have a safety net left for the genuinely vulnerable people who need it. I refer time and again to a point I made in my maiden speech that rings as true today as it ever has done. I said:
“I want to ensure that there is no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.]
Welfare Cap
Judith Cummins Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the permission of the House, the motions relating to the welfare cap will be debated together.
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I beg to move,
That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2022 update, which was approved by this House on 6 February 2023 under section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the forecast breach of the welfare cap in 2024–25 due to higher forecast expenditure on Universal Credit and disability benefits is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the level of the welfare cap, as specified in the Autumn Budget 2024, which was laid before this House on 30 October 2024, be approved.
Alison McGovern
Before this Government were elected, we said that we would change this country, and we will. To get change done, any Government have to stand on firm foundations, which is why, as we have just heard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we promised to be responsible with the public’s money. We know that every penny counts in this mission, because if we fail to protect the public purse, we fail to protect the purses of the public. Family finances can never withstand fantasy economics.
That was supposed to be the whole point of the welfare cap. It was designed to help better control public spending, counting the cost of the rising price of failure. I will come to some of the failures we are now seeing and the people thrown on the scrapheap as a result of the failure of 14 years of economic policy, particularly on the labour market.
The welfare cap was intended to ensure that the cost of important parts of the social security system, such as universal credit—though not counting those actively looking for work—the personal independence payment and pension credit, remains predictable and affordable. Only the state pension and benefits for unemployed households were excluded.
What was the result of a decade of Conservative welfare caps? Repeated breaches of the cap, with ever higher limits. The latest cap is now on course to be breached by an £8.6 billion overspend. This is not tolerable, given the state of our economy and the public finances.
Worse still, there is the human cost for every single person who could be enjoying the benefits of work but has been denied the choices and chances they deserve. I regularly meet people in that position. There is the young person who has not recovered from the dreadful legacy of the pandemic—not in college, not starting their first job, barely even able to go out with friends, and bearing the burden of the mental health crisis that our young people face. I believe the pandemic generation was completely let down.
There are our older relatives who have been pushed out of work before their time with hip or knee pain. The NHS is just not able to help them at the moment, and they are not even getting advice about how to make ends meet. That is the legacy we inherited, and it is not good enough for anybody. It is also the legacy of low growth, the higher cost of living and high inactivity, with employment and social security systems ill equipped to meet the requirements of an older, sicker nation. That is the Conservative party’s record.
Unfortunately, this breach—forecast as far back as March 2023 but ignored—is now wholly unavoidable in this fiscal year, given the scale of failure we have inherited. We will not duck the difficult decisions needed to restore economic stability, and we will deal with the failure we see before us.
Before I say how we will do that, I want to reflect on exactly how we ended up in this situation. The sad truth is that, in way too many parts of the country, too many people are denied the opportunity to have a good job so that they can support themselves and put a roof over their family’s heads.
The benefits bill only reflects that failure, with 2.8 million people locked out of the workforce due to poor health, and 3.4 million more working-age people reporting a long-term health condition than 10 years ago. We have large numbers of people turning up to a social security system that is not geared up to meet what has become the greatest unemployment challenge of a generation.
Dr Sandher
I thank the hon. Member for that point. Indeed, that is the entire reason why we are changing the system today. Yes, it is about practical changes and providing more support, but it is also about a change of tone, a change of attitude and treating people like human beings. That is exactly what Labour Members believe.
These reforms and support, at their core, are about ensuring that every single person has a decent job, which gives them meaning and something to talk about with their mates. A previous Labour Government did that so well, and that is how we got poverty down. A previous Member for Sedgefield, who is a shining light for us on the Labour Benches, promised to end child poverty in a generation, and a previous Member for Dunfermline, who is a hero to us, put that into practice and reduced child poverty by almost a million. It is that Labour tradition to which I speak. That Labour tradition is why I am proud to stand here today, and that is why I am proud to vote in favour of these motions.
Income Tax (Charge)
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The technology we will put in place will be precisely so that we drive down not only fraud but errors in the system. He will know, for example, that we are trialling a new system for carers in which we text them if they are about to go over their allowance, so that we do not have the scandalous overpayments that caused such a problem under the previous Government.
The second major reform that we will bring in is our plan to get Britain working again. Our White Paper, which will be published in the coming weeks, will bring forward the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, backed by an additional £240 million of investment. This will help us meet our ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate and to turn what is in reality a Department for welfare into a genuine Department for work. First, we will create a new jobs and careers service, overhauling our jobcentres so that they no longer focus predominantly on monitoring and assessing benefits but are a genuine employment service working with employers, colleges, public services and local leaders to help people to get work and get on in work.
Secondly, we will devolve powers to Mayors and local areas to join up the fragmented patchwork system of employment, skills and, crucially, health support to drive down economic inactivity and drive up employment, boosting jobs and growth in every corner of the country—because the man, or even woman, in Whitehall does not know what is best in Leicester, Liverpool or Leeds. Last, but by no means least, we will bring forward our new youth guarantee, so that every young person is earning or learning—no ifs, no buts—because we do not accept having a generation of young people without the skills or jobs they need to succeed, and we will never write off young people before they have even begun.
Our determination to help people get work and keep work does not stop there. I know only too well from my constituents and my friends how often women in their 50s and beyond are now caring for elderly and disabled relatives but wanting to work at the same time. I am proud that we are giving family carers the biggest ever boost to the amounts they can earn while still receiving carer’s allowance. That will allow them to increase their hours to the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage, so that they can balance work and family life. This comes on top of the independent review into the scandalous overpayment of carer’s allowance that I have already announced, led by the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK, Liz Sayce, to ensure that we learn the lessons from what happened so that it never happens again. As a lifelong champion of family carers, I am proud that we have made that announcement. Our plan to get Britain working is crucial to driving up opportunity and driving down poverty—a key priority of this Labour Government.
The fact that over 4 million children are now growing up poor, with more than 800,000 living in households forced to rely on food banks, is a stain on our society. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and I have already set out the framework for our bold, ambitious, cross-Government strategy to tackle child poverty. We will publish the results in the spring, but we will not wait to act, particularly for those facing the deepest poverty.
We have extended the household support fund and discretionary housing payments, with an additional £1 billion this year, so that local authorities can help families and pensioners who face the greatest hardship. Furthermore, we have introduced our new fair repayment rate to cap the level of debt repayments that can be taken from universal credit, putting an average of £420 a year into the pockets of 1.2 million of the poorest households, which will lift thousands of children and families out of poverty. When I was chair of Feeding Leicester, food banks told me that debt driven by universal credit deductions was one of the biggest reasons why people had to use food banks, which is why I know this is such an important change.
We are also substantially increasing the income of pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and who deserve security in retirement. Our commitment to the pension triple lock throughout this Parliament means that spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion. This includes a more than £470 rise in the new state pension from next April.
Unlike the previous Government, who left over 800,000 pensioners missing out on the pension credit to which they are entitled, we are delivering the biggest-ever drive to increase uptake. For the first time, we are contacting 120,000 people on housing benefit who may be eligible for pension credit and, to guarantee even greater uptake, we will merge pension credit and housing benefit for new claimants from 2026. The Conservatives first promised this in 2011, but they never delivered. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
There is still much more to do, but this Budget starts to turn the corner: fixing the foundations of our economy and public services, driving up opportunity and driving down poverty in every corner of the land. We are honest about the challenges we face and optimistic about the opportunities ahead. This is a real plan for real change. I commend this Budget to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members can observe how many people want to speak in the debate, so following the completion of all Front-Bench speeches, I will impose an immediate six-minute time limit to start with. I call Gill Furniss.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Back in July Britain voted to turn the corner on 14 years of failure at the hands of the Conservative party: 14 years of unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest, 14 years of austerity that left working people to pick up the bill and 14 years of our public services crumbling. This Budget is a breath of fresh air that delivers on what people voted for, with £1.4 billion to rebuild schools, £30 million for breakfast clubs and an extra 2 million NHS appointments.
Today I want to speak about an issue that is very close to my heart: further education. Before entering Parliament, I worked in further education and saw at first hand the transformational impact it can have. I have seen adults of all ages, some of whom have struggled with even basic literacy and numeracy, make major strides forward and go on to university and high-quality jobs. A thriving FE sector is also vital to meet the challenges of the future. Decarbonisation and new technologies, like AI, are already revolutionising our workforce, and the CBI has found that nine in 10 people will need to reskill in this decade alone. We are in the midst of a skills shortage, with businesses struggling to fill highly skilled positions and instead recruiting from abroad. These are no longer the skills of the future but the skills of today, and we already have the infrastructure ready to go to meet the challenge, with hundreds of colleges filled with thousands of experts teaching countless subjects.
My constituency is home to two exemplary FE institutions: the Sheffield college and Longley Park sixth form. I pay tribute to all their staff, who go above and beyond to give students the best support possible. There are exciting developments happening in Sheffield. The Sheffield college will soon open its new advanced technology centre—a state-of-the-art facility that will play a key role in meeting the skills needs of employers, accelerating our green skills strategy, and supporting growth in the local and regional economy. The success of the sector is all the more impressive when we consider the funding challenges it has endured. On the last Government’s watch, spending per college student fell by 5% in real terms, but this Government have shown that they understand their value, and I am so pleased to see in the Budget the commitment of an extra £300 million for further education.
This Government are filled with expertise in further education. I am delighted to see Baroness Smith of Malvern appointed as Minister for Skills. Her wealth of knowledge and experience means that she will be a strong voice for the value of further education in the skills agenda. I also welcome the steps that the Government are taking to deliver on our manifesto commitment to create a flexible growth and skills levy; the investment of £40 million will help to ensure that apprenticeships, with decent employment at the end, are available for people of all skillsets.
Employers have long called for reform of the apprenticeship levy, which many have found to be inflexible and unfit for purpose. We need a new system that works for employers and workers alike, and which has further education at its heart. I am pleased that this Government are taking immediate action in this area and backing it up with real investment. This will be a major step forward in a new relationship between employers, the workforce and further education—all working together to build a workforce that is fit for the future.
This Government’s steadfast focus is delivering economic growth in every corner of the country—something that has been lacking in my constituency for far too long. I look forward to the establishment of Skills England to help upskill the workforce nationwide, working alongside our fantastic further education sector to succeed.