Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was going to make a very similar point. We have to consider the serious consequences of the Government, in effect, turning banks into de facto government inspectors, as well as the unintended consequences such as those for politically exposed persons. Goodness knows that that has not gone well. It has created all sorts of chaos. I am very anxious about private institutions, in effect, being asked to do the Government’s dirty work in many instances.

I want to query, though, banks being able to charge for the hard work they do via new paragraph 8 in Schedule 5, in which there is a provision for the bank to be able to deduct a fee from the debtor’s account to meet its reasonable costs in complying with the order, which is a ridiculous situation. It amounts to state-backed approval of funds being taken directly from the bank accounts of private customers to deal with administrative retrieval of overpayments. By the way, the maximum amount that banks could charge would be set by the Secretary of State via regulations, which is also not reassuring. Although I do not want the banks to be used, I also do not want them to be able to charge their own clients to do the job that the Government have demanded they do. I feel very queasy about all this.

On the discrimination point, if these measures identify a range of types of bank clients who are causing more trouble than they are worth, the obvious decision will be to debank. It makes perfect sense that they would think, just like every other private sector organisation, “Do I really want people on benefits living in my house?” We have seen this discrimination time and again. There is a serious danger of unintended consequences here that the Government have to take seriously.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading, but the Bill has attracted my interest for the reasons a number of noble Lords have pointed out about procedure and due process. I share the concern about the risk of debanking en masse a group of individuals whom banks will view as not particularly good customers in terms of the money they deposit and as they now come with greater risks. I would also like to know what the Government’s thinking is on that issue.

Looking at this from the point of view of the bank, I am a bit concerned about the relationship between Clause 19(4) and Clause 19(10). Clause 19(4) says:

“The Minister may give an account information notice relating to an account only for the purpose of determining whether to make a direct deduction order in respect of the account”.


If the bank receives such a request for an account information notice, but for some reason considers there may be a different purpose in that request, what is the bank supposed to do? Clause 19(8) says:

“The bank must comply with a notice given under this section”.


However, Clause 19(4) puts a clear limit in terms of the lawfulness of giving an account information notice. Who is to assess whether there is any doubt as to the purpose of that account information notice?

In Clause 19(10), it says:

“Information given to the Minister in response to a notice under this section may be used by the Minister for the purpose of exercising the core functions but not for any other purpose”.


Of course, the core functions are wider than the purpose identified in Clause 19(4), which says that you can give an account information notice only for the purposes of determining whether to make a direct deduction order. But then, in Clause 19(10), that information may be used for wider purposes than enabling the taking of that decision.

That puts the bank in a bit of difficult position. It is told that it must comply with a notice but also that the notice must be only for the purposes of determining whether to make a direct deduction order. If it has any doubt, presumably it owes a duty to its customers and will have to consider how to behave in that situation. Further, it is also told that the information it will be providing may be used for wider purposes than simply the making of a direct deduction order. I would like to hear from the Government how they see the relationship between these various provisions in Clause 19, and where that leaves the bank in that kind of scenario.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not always the case that you get the most difficult question just before you stand up? I am going to speak really slowly until I get a speaking note that gives me the appropriate answer.

I confirm that the Government are extremely mindful of the burdens this Bill places on business, including the banking sector. We want to ensure that it is not subject to disproportionate burdens or costs in complying with these measures. I will start by referring to the Bill’s published impact assessment, which sets out all the expected costs to businesses, including banks, of the PSFA measures. This has been green rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee and sets out the minimal expected costs to businesses where it has been possible to do so, including to banks for Part 1 of the Bill’s measures.

Throughout the development of this Bill, we have tried to strike the right balance between requiring actions from banks in a fair and proportionate way while achieving our policy intent of recouping vital public funds lost to fraud and error. This is why there has been sustained engagement with key representatives of the sector, including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies, HM Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority. Some of this is reflected in government amendments that we will discuss later in Committee.

We know that the sector is supportive of the Bill’s objectives from the evidence provided by UK Finance in Committee in the other place. We have benefited from the sector’s operational insights, which have led us to table a number of amendments as a direct result to ease the implementation and delivery of the recovery powers. The PSFA and the DWP will, for their relevant measures, will continue to work closely with banks on the design and implementation of relevant measures, including consulting on relevant regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the spirit of this group of amendments. I am not clear that I understand entirely how the independent review process might work, but I do understand the importance of having an independent review process; the case for this was made convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.

Despite the fact that we are whizzing through these amendments at great speed, I do not think that it would be right to underestimate the huge amount of power that this Bill gives the Cabinet Office. There appears to be an atmosphere of consensual camaraderie, which it is pleasant to be involved in—it may be an atmosphere I am less used to—but I emphasise the amount of concern outside this Committee about the implications of this Bill. The people who are concerned are not all hucksters or fraudsters: they are ordinary people who have genuine fears around the possibilities of the absolutely unintended consequences of the Bill if we do not have adequate safeguards. So I am keen on anything that strengthens safeguards.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider these amendments seriously. I think that they are very helpful. I am particularly keen, of course, on the idea that liable persons, as they are described, deserve to have somewhere they can go to make an appeal. They deserve to know, as was suggested, that, if they have legitimate concerns, they will be heard. So much of what appears to be in this Bill happens behind the backs of liable persons, which creates an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and nervousness.

I do not think that people are just being paranoid here. Consider—this has been mentioned before and will no doubt come up again—the Horizon scandal. There is nothing more frustrating than feeling as though you have been treated badly somehow but you do not know where to go. You have nowhere to appeal to. It may be that you have a perfectly legitimate explanation for something. What we saw in Horizon was “computer says no”. What we could have here is the Cabinet Office, which has just imposed something on you, not taking any notice if you should go and complain. That is a very important part of this: people deserve to know that their concerns can be heard, and so on.

There is a danger in this discussion sometimes. I fear that, if one raises concerns about this Bill, there will be an inference that one is not taking fraud seriously. That is absolutely not the case. I have constantly made the point, for example, that I worry about the conflation of error and fraud. This does not mean to say, though, that, where there is genuine fraud, we should not want to clamp down on it as hard as we can.

But it is also fair enough that we need to have a system in which there is public confidence. To clamp down on fraudulent activity, we need a watertight, safeguarded Bill that targets fraud and does not pick up any number of non-fraudulent issues, which will undermine public confidence. The intention of these amendments is to help enhance public confidence that there is a mechanism through which an independent body can review a process that could be corrupted inadvertently by a department having the capacity to mark its own homework, and, in that instance, not always see the wood for the trees when people raise concerns.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, have a few comments to make on these amendments. I very much support the intention behind them. I would like to understand a bit more about Clause 34 and how it will operate. Paragraph 219 of the Explanatory Notes says:

“This clause introduces a process for review of deduction orders by an authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision maker upon application by relevant parties”.


As far as I can see, there is no mention in the legislative text of the authorised officer who conducts the review being of a higher grade. Perhaps I have missed it, and it is somewhere else; if so, I would be grateful to know where. If it is not somewhere else, it may be that the Explanatory Notes made that point on the basis of general principles of administrative law. Either way, it would be useful to know where that comes from.

My second point concerns the grounds for review, which are very narrow. Clause 34(4) says:

“An application for a review under this section may not be made on, or include, any ground relating to the existence or amount of a payable amount (unless the amount is said to be incorrectly stated in the order)”.


The grounds for appeal in the following clause are equally narrow. Is my understanding correct that the reason these grounds are so narrowly drawn is that there has already been a final determination of the payable amount by a court or tribunal—which was the reference to Clause 12 that we were given earlier on? Can the Minister give us some examples of grounds for review, given how narrowly drawn that provision is in Clause 34(4)?

Finally, I note that there is no time limit imposed on the Minister for carrying out the review. The applicant would have to put in an application within 28 days, but they might just sit and wait for the outcome of that review for an indefinite period. Would it not be a good idea to include a clear time limit on the reviewer—ideally the independent reviewer—or the authorised officer for that review to be concluded?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I will say very briefly that I support the concept, at least, behind these amendments. It cannot be right that the Minister marks his own homework. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, talked about what it says in the guidance notes. I do not know whether this is the right mechanism but, at the very least, if a review is to be carried out by the department, it must be by somebody who was not at all involved in the original decision and is not answerable to anybody directly involved in the decision-making process. That needs to be set in stone somewhere, not just in guidance notes or whatever that can be changed at a whim by any future Government. This is one of the weaknesses throughout this. We have lots of safeguards, but they are all in codes of conduct, future statutory instruments or whatever; they are not set in stone in the law and therefore are not strong safeguards. That is a general thought.

I have a feeling that I know what the answer will be: if they do not like the outcome of the review, they can go to the First-tier Tribunal. But that is a big leap from going back and saying, “Can we have an independent review?”. A First-tier Tribunal is, effectively, a full legal process. We need something that works and in which people can have confidence at the first level, before needing to take it to the much more legalistic, costly and complicated process of the First-tier Tribunal. I think the Minister will say that that is the answer, but I am not sure that I agree.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Grand Committee

How will the promise of human intervention be exercised at the stage at which bank accounts are interrogated? That is done by an algorithm and the computer. It is only at the subsequent stage, when cases are thrown up, that there will human intervention. That is wrong; it is an extension of the state’s powers in a way that is totally unwarranted in relation to the scale of the benefits achieved by the exercise.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I agree with many of the concerns that have been expressed in connection with this group, but I will say a few words specifically in support of Amendment 79B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. As it stands, paragraph 1(1) in new Schedule 3B affords a very broad discretion to the Secretary of State. It says that the Secretary of State may, for the named purposes,

“give a person of a type mentioned in paragraph 2 a notice … requiring the person to take the following steps”.

On its face, this is an unfettered discretion—or, rather, it is a discretion limited only by the purpose. Other than those purposes, the discretion does not, on its face, have a limit. The power that the Secretary of State has under this clause is very broad because, on receiving those notices, the banks or financial institutions will have to take those two steps. Perhaps later we will explore the step in connection with the eligibility indicators, which is potentially quite intrusive.

It seems to me that the language proposed in the amendment would identify a standard—reasonable satisfaction—that would have to govern the exercise of this discretion. In that respect, together with a number of other amendments also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—but particularly in the context of this power—the amendment seems extremely sensible. I urge the Government to consider it and, in due course, accept it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I attached my name to the Clause 74 stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and Amendment 80 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The stand part notice is a simple solution, but the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, effectively, has the same impact, which is ensuring that you can investigate only when there is cause to investigate. I do not care which way it is done, but it is very clear—I associate myself with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, here—that we are now at the sharp end of the Bill. As the noble Lord said and as I understand it, this is unprecedented in British law. This is going trawling; it is a fishing expedition and a mass intrusion. As the noble Lord said, quoting the DWP itself, it is about “‘persons unknown’ at scale”—that is an extremely telling phrase.

To put this in context, today the High Pay Centre put out its annual report on fat cat pay, which exposed what a hugely unequal society we have. It found that, on average, the top payees in organisations were getting 52 times as much as the median paid worker. The most extreme case of this that it found was the security and waste group Mitie, whose CEO was being paid 575 times the median salary of the workers. That is a comparison to the median but of course we know that many of those Mitie workers will be on the minimum wage or very near the minimum wage, and they will be in receipt of the benefits explicitly identified in the Bill. They will face their bank accounts being trawled through without their knowledge, while the CEO, with that lovely and enormously high pay level, does not face the same intrusion. This is a fundamental inequality in our society that is actively dangerous in terms of building the divisions within society.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, powerfully introduced the clause stand part notice, but I note his Amendment 89, which would ensure that the Bill may be used only in relation to the benefits listed in the Bill. I will not do the full Henry VIII story but, as is very obvious—it was made clear in the briefing I think we all received from the Justice organisation—with the Henry VIII powers, the Government can extend this to any other benefit. The one that immediately comes to mind, given how much it is in the headlines at the moment, is the personal independence payment—PIP—and the issues and the level of fear that already exist around that. I cannot remember the specific occasion, but I suspect that the Minister will have joined me, under the previous Government, in questioning Henry VIII clauses. This would shut the door on a Henry VIII clause, and it urgently needs to be done. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for identifying that and putting the amendment down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 84 and 85 attempt to strengthen important safeguards around the use of information that is gained through an EVM. The Minister has quite rightly said that the scope of the information the banks can provide in response to an EVM is tightly limited. She is right, and that is a very significant improvement to the previous incarnation of the Bill. As currently framed, the only information that can be provided to the Secretary of State by the bank is specified details about the account, such as sort code and account number; specified details about the account holder, such as name and date of birth; and specified details about how the account meets the eligibility indicators. It is also clear in the Bill that transaction data or special category data may not be provided. So far, so good and, as I said, it is a great improvement.

But there is another important potential loophole here. Clause 72 gives the Secretary of State the power to require much more intrusive information if the Secretary of State

“has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence”.

So, if the existence of an eligibility indicator alone would meet the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”, then the tightly drawn restrictions on the data that banks can provide under an EVM become somewhat meaningless. It will just move on to the next phase almost automatically. We have had a lot of discussion around automation, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that given the volumes of data that will be provided over time, it seems extremely likely that it will—in fact, it is extremely unlikely that it will not—be processed automatically by the DWP, which will choose which ones to investigate more deeply. We have heard about the human elements and will come on to those in the second amendment in this group. but the code of practice does not cover the transfer from EVM to Clause 72’s more intrusive data searching.

Nothing in the code of practice or the Bill would prevent this eligibility indicator being used as reasonable grounds to suspect and, therefore, the Clause 72 provision being triggered with no other safeguard. There may be many reasons why the existence of an eligibility indicator might be entirely innocent. The impact assessment and the noble Baroness have given the example of authorised disregards and genuine error—and genuine error on the part of both the individual and the department. So it seems that, before exercising the robust and intrusive powers under Clause 72, much more should be required, or at least more should be required, than just the existence of an eligibility indicator alone, and I stress “alone”. That is what Amendment 84 tries to achieve, and I think this is probably in line with what the noble Baroness intends, so I hope that this or something like it will be acceptable.

The second amendment, Amendment 85, deals with another critically important safeguard. In response to various concerns raised about the use of algorithms, algorithmic processing, the use of AI and so on, the noble Baroness has stated very clearly that information must be reviewed by a human person before action is taken, and a previous group discussed how bias and stereotyping can creep into automated systems—I will not repeat that. But again, the human element—the human review—does not appear anywhere in the Bill. There is a reference to human decision-making in paragraph 4.31 of the draft code of practice:

“No data source is perfect or infallible. That is why in fraud and error, a human will make any final decisions that affect benefit entitlement, and any indications of potential fraud or error will be looked at comprehensively”.


But this does not set out any level of seniority or qualification, and it covers only final decisions that affect benefit entitlements and not, for example, decisions to affect the intrusive investigative powers that Amendment 84 is looking at. More importantly, the code of conduct can be changed at will by the department; there is no parliamentary oversight or what have you.

As I have said before, I do not doubt the noble Baroness’s intentions in this respect, but the Bill will outlast her tenure and indeed her party’s tenure. Future Governments or Ministers may not have vulnerable people’s interests at heart in the same way that she does. Imagine a future Government applying a DOGE-style approach to this.

The requirement for any decision to be taken by a suitably qualified and senior human is such an important safeguard that I believe it must be in the Bill and not left to the whim of any future Government who might wish to simply automate the whole process—and they could do that: they just change the code of conduct. The issue is not about decisions that affect benefit entitlement alone; as I say, appropriate human review should cover also the use of the more intrusive powers under Clause 72, and the code of conduct does not cover that at all.

I am very happy to discuss the wording, but the principle of suitably qualified and senior human review before decisions are taken is, for me, one of the key safeguards. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to look sympathetically at this amendment, especially as all it does, I think, is to codify what she has consistently said will be the case. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I very strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said on these two amendments. They are some of the most important amendments that have been debated today because they go to a very fundamental principle. The power in Clause 72, with the new Section 109BZB, is quite significant, and we need to have limits to the exercise of this power in the Bill, both as regards the reasonable grounds—that is Amendment 84—and as regards the human decision-maker. I will not repeat the noble Lord’s reasons because I thought he put his case so compellingly, but I am very much in favour.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am also pleased to welcome Amendments 84 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, which serve to strengthen the safeguards within the Bill.

Amendment 84 would ensure that an authorised person must have more than just the existence of an eligibility indicator before embarking on more intrusive investigations. We believe this is a vital protection against overreach, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unnecessary or disproportionate scrutiny based on limited evidence. Such a safeguard is entirely in keeping with my party’s principles of fairness and proportionality—that word again—and it will help to maintain public confidence in the system by ensuring that investigations are always grounded in robust evidence.

Amendment 85, which requires that information received following an eligibility verification notice is reviewed by an appropriately senior person before any changes to benefits or intrusive investigations are commenced, is equally welcome. This amendment introduces an important layer of oversight and accountability, ensuring that decisions with potentially significant consequences for individuals are not taken lightly or without proper consideration. By embedding these checks and balances into the Bill, we would be not only protecting the rights of claimants but upholding the integrity of our counterfraud efforts. I confirm other comments about how important these amendments are, and I hope that we can carry them forward to Report if need be.