Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457)

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 457).

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I appreciate that it is incredibly warm in here, but bear with me, because this is an important debate. I want to sound the alarm about the statutory instrument: it hands the Government sweeping discretionary powers, with too few safeguards and too little scrutiny, by allowing the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend the length of fixed-term personal independent payments.

The measure is intended to tackle the backlog of award reviews following covid-19, but we believe it takes us backwards, not forwards. Under the previous approach, people’s awards were regularly reviewed to ensure that they received support that reflected their actual circumstances, yet under the new approach, most claimants will get only two checks in 10 years—one review period will last four years, with subsequent reviews lasting six years. That is just not good enough. Taxpayers deserve confidence that support is being targeted correctly. Previously, 77% of PIP awards were for up to two years, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, so many people will experience substantial extensions to their review periods.

We must acknowledge the serious problems with PIP caseloads, which shot up after covid. At best, however, this secondary legislation is a blunt tool to fix a difficult situation; at worst, it grants the Secretary of State discretionary powers that are wide open to future misuse. It moves us away from proper oversight towards a system where awards can continue for ever longer periods without appropriate checks—in simple terms, more benefits, less scrutiny.

The Government’s answer to that objection appears to be little more than a reminder letter. If reviews are pushed further apart, Ministers will rely more heavily on claimants to self-report changes in their circumstances, but given the longer timeframes, will people have a genuine incentive to report changes that could lead to their award being reduced or withdrawn? It is easy to loosen the system, but far harder to tighten it. Once rules have been relaxed, people adjust their expectations—the horse has bolted.

One day, the backlog may be cleared—we hope—and the Department may seek to increase the frequency of reviews again, but if that happens, I worry that claimants will quite understandably resent the return of more frequent checks. There has been no public consultation on this secondary legislation, because it is supposedly a mere administrative tweak to support the delivery of PIP. Labour is in effect using this opportunity to extend assessment periods by the back door.

Responsible welfare reform means building a system that works as best it can for those who need it most. For many, PIP is a lifeline; it helps them to live independently, to stay connected and, for some, to remain in work. In many cases, people with the most severe and lifelong disabilities already receive longer awards, where appropriate—the system already contains that provision.

To maintain confidence in the system, PIP and other welfare entitlements must be accurate and fair. People’s health situations change, circumstances evolve and some conditions naturally worsen, but others improve. For those with less serious needs, this measure will reduce the opportunities to review whether the support being offered is still appropriate. That is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat to the la-la land of ever more state handouts and ever less oversight.

I know that some will say that regular reviews create anxiety, and I understand that. Of course, no one wants unnecessary stress, but we must remember what reviews are for—they are there not to catch people out, but to ensure that support is going to the right people, at the right level and for the right reasons. In fact, for people who continue to have genuine needs, reviews can provide certainty by extending existing rewards. In cases where someone’s condition has deteriorated, they can also lead to higher levels of support.

We believe that this statutory instrument is merely a symptom of a wider problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has said, we are becoming far too quick to sign people on to welfare and far too slow to help them into work. We are seeing a passive and permissive approach from this Government when what this country needs is an active and ambitious one.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reassessment changes that we are introducing through this statutory instrument and other measures will save something like £2 billion by the end of the Parliament. I am sure we all agree that would be welcome, given the increasing size of the welfare bill. Why is the hon. Member opposing that saving, and how would she fill the gap instead?

[Rebecca Smith]

Of course we want to save money, but we do not think that this statutory instrument is the right way to do it. We think that it will just reduce the opportunities for people to have those reviews—the assessments that need to take place. Arguably, more money can perhaps be saved if those reviews happen within a quicker timeframe, because there are many people who, if the right things happen, can be moved off benefits much more quickly than we believe the statutory instrument allows for.

Over 4 million people of working age are now on sickness and incapacity benefits, nearly half a million of whom are under 25. One in four people in the UK now report as disabled. At the same time, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Timms review of personal independence payment is not designed to deliver welfare savings, something that I find extraordinary. How can that possibly be an effective review if it refuses to tackle the elephant in the room—our ballooning benefits bill?

Real compassion means not abandoning people to a life on benefits. State support must act as a springboard, not a destination. As the official Opposition, we believe in supporting the vulnerable, but we also believe in fairness to taxpayers—fairness to those who get up every morning, go to work and expect the welfare system to be properly managed.

The Government’s own rationale regarding work disincentives is also deeply inconsistent. PIP awards will be extended only for claimants aged 25 and over. The Department argues that unemployment can have “long-term scarring effects” on younger people. Therefore, those whose health has improved should not remain on PIP any longer than necessary. Of course, younger claimants are more likely than older claimants to see improvements in their functional capacity, which helps explain why they are exempt from these longer review periods, but the logic just does not hold up, because unemployment can have scarring effects at any age. If regular reviews are important for younger claimants because circumstances can change, why should that principle suddenly cease to apply when someone reaches 25? Either regular reviews matter or they do not. The Government cannot have it both ways.

Speaking of work incentives, Members are being asked to trust the Government with a significant new power under the statutory instrument, but why should we place that trust in Ministers when they cannot even tell us the scale of the backlog in Access to Work? I have been told by the Department that it does not hold information about average waiting times between the approval of an Access to Work application and when support actually starts, because—so it says—it would require a painstaking manual review of individual records. If the Government cannot easily access that kind of basic data, is it any wonder that they have been so reluctant to grasp the nettle on other areas of welfare reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We hear lots of talk in politics and the media right now about the need to cut benefits. Of course, control of spending is always a priority, but the first question that we should ask about any benefit is whether it is doing the job it is supposed to. A PIP is a lifeline, not a luxury. It is designed to support disabled people with the extra costs of daily living resulting from their disability. It is not specifically an in-work benefit, but in practice it does help many people keep their jobs, which is, of course, what we want. That is why, as Liberal Democrats, we believe that any change to how PIP awards are managed must put the needs of the claimant first, not the administrative convenience of the Department.

We are deeply concerned by the DWP’s admission that it has been extending PIP awards on an ad hoc basis without clear statutory cover—that was potentially unlawful. Disabled people deserve a system that operates within the law with proper safeguards, not one that has been quietly patched up in a Heath Robinson fashion, and which is only now being regularised through secondary legislation.

The regulations were introduced without a vote in Parliament and without referral to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Yet changes of such significance, which affect hundreds of thousands of disabled people, deserve proper parliamentary scrutiny, not secondary legislation slipped through without a vote. We welcome Government assurances that the regulations cannot be used to shorten existing awards or to cut the rates paid, and we welcome the retention of appeal rights, but the fact that the regulations are necessary at all is not positive. If we had the proper capacity to carry out PIP reviews on schedule when they were required, there would never be a need for extensions.

[Oliver Ryan]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the types of assessment and the way in which the assessment is done, and he is right to talk about capacity. Just before the election, the previous Government signed new contracts that said 80% of new assessments would be done virtually. The changes to reassessment in these regulations will save money and move more of those assessments from being virtual to face to face, which will better serve people on PIP. Does the hon. Gentleman not support the introduction of more face-to-face assessments?

[John Milne]

I agree with the hon. Member and entirely accept that the issue is not of this Government’s making, although as ever it is this Government’s obligation to sort it out. The regulations are a positive move in the right direction, but I am lamenting the state of affairs in general, not necessarily blaming it on Labour Members.

The SSAC has rightly raised concerns about the impact on claimants who have worsening conditions. Such claimants may now go longer without a reassessment and could therefore miss out on a justified increased award. That is why simply taking no action is not a satisfactory position; we have to do something.

We have consistently called for PIP assessments to be made more transparent and for unnecessary reassessments to be stopped. Properly implemented, longer award periods could reduce claimants’ anxiety and the bureaucratic burden on them, but only if there is a clear and accessible route for people whose needs have changed to request a reassessment without potentially having to wait years for it.

In conclusion, we support the measure, as a matter of legal necessity if nothing else. It will put PIP extensions on a legal basis, although we regret that that was not already the case years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There certainly has been data along those lines; I think it was data along those lines that made the previous Government think that they need not start face-to-face assessments again. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: to build confidence in the system, not least on the part of the people being assessed—I was speaking to somebody yesterday who said, “I wish that I’d had a face-to-face assessment”—and to make sure that the correct decisions are being made, we do need face-to-face assessments.

By the time of the general election, only about 7% of work capability assessments and PIP assessments were being carried out face to face. We want to do a great deal better than that. It was not just that the resources for face-to-face assessments were not provided in the assessment contracts, although that was certainly part of the issue; the other factor was that the previous Government walked away from large amounts of the assessment estate so there were no longer enough places where face-to-face assessments could be carried out. That is a pretty fundamental problem. The hon. Member for South West Devon spoke about la-la land, but frankly, that is where the Government who she supported left us.

We are therefore mounting a major rebuilding task to regain the capacity for face-to-face assessments that the last Government threw away, because our view is that these assessments should be done properly. We have started to rebuild the capacity that the previous Government threw away. We have increased the proportion of work capability assessments and PIP assessments carried out face to face, and we are on our way to achieving our target that at least 30% of both will be face to face. To achieve that, we need additional assessment resource; this measure is a key step in enabling us to obtain that.

[Oliver Ryan]

As the Minister is reading out his list of achievements, may I add to it? Does he think it is a good thing that we have put nearly £1 billion into support for the sick and disabled? That will partly come from savings from this and other measures, which we hope will save £1.9 billion by the end of the Parliament. As he says, the act of government is about making these difficult decisions and trade-offs in order to provide people with more support in the long run.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not yet got to that bit in my list, but I am coming to it—I am looking forward to that part of my speech.

The Conservative party is telling us that it would maintain its failed approach, with hardly any assessments being carried out face to face. That does at least have the benefit of consistency, I suppose, but we do not think it is good enough, and we will make the changes necessary to do far better. As my hon. Friend correctly highlighted, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, this change that we have announced will reduce benefits spending by almost £2 billion—£1.9 billion—over five years.

We inherited an assessment system that was not equipped to do the job. The previous Government agreed contractual limits that meant at most 20% of assessments would be face to face. That was written into the contracts they signed, but there was not nearly enough capacity even to meet that level. We are having to fix a broken system, and we are making good progress, with the measure we are debating being an important step.

The purpose of this straightforward change is to provide the Secretary of State the power to extend personal independence payment awards in a limited set of circumstances, where it is deemed necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration of benefits. Before the amendment, a decision to extend an award of PIP required either a new claim for PIP, evidence of an error or mistake in the first decision, evidence that the claimant’s circumstances had changed, or the completion of a report by a healthcare professional appointed by the Secretary of State. In many cases, that would involve a claimant undergoing an assessment. Where such a decision could not be taken before an award expired, claimants would cease to be entitled to PIP until a further decision was completed. They would remain so until a further decision on entitlement could be made.

The amendment grants a specific discretion, making it possible to extend only the length of an award, and only where doing so is necessary for the administration of the benefit. As well as allowing the more efficient use of assessment resources, the discretion protects vulnerable claimants who would risk losing entitlement to PIP if, as in the pandemic, circumstances threatened to limit the state’s capacity to administer it. We are ensuring that the Department can lawfully maintain benefits payments to the most vulnerable people.

The new power will be used initially to increase the length of existing awards in line with the policy on award lengths for new awards, for which the Secretary of State already has the power. Existing claimants’ awards will be extended so that most first-time awards for those over 25 will be reviewed after three years, and most subsequent awards will be reviewed after five. Only awards deemed to be appropriate for those durations will be extended. The Committee may well be interested to know that the average annual increase in the PIP caseload has slowed under this Government: it fell from an increase of about 13% a year in 2019-20 to 2024-25, to a forecast average of about 7% a year over the subsequent five years.

The hon. Member for Horsham made a point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think he said that the committee had not looked at this; that is not correct—the committee has looked at it. It looks at all the regulatory changes that we propose, and it does a very good job. It plays an important role, and we welcome its scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee asked questions, and we were happy to set out the purpose of the regulations and the reasons for them. The committee accepted the information that we provided, and it chose to take the regulations on formal reference. I think the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about the committee’s view of this change.

I am grateful for the points that have been made and the opportunity for scrutiny that the debate has provided. The changes we are making enable the Department to make more efficient use of limited assessment capacity, to reduce assessments where they are not needed in order to focus on where they are needed, and to allow PIP awards to be extended in an emergency or crisis, as emerged during the pandemic, thereby protecting some vulnerable people from unnecessary hardship.

This is a measured amendment to ensure the effective administration of the benefits system. I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon will not press the motion to a Division, but I fear she probably will—her party issued a press release before this Committee to say that Conservative Members would vote to annul the amendment, possibly before they realised what exactly was going on. If that is the case, I urge the Committee not to vote against the amendment.

Getting Britain Working Again

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to welcome this King’s Speech after the bumper legislative year we have just had. Acts such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025 are already making a difference to my constituents, and there are more than 5,000 children in my area with better supported parents because of the lifting of the two-child benefit cap.

When I talk to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield about their priorities, they talk to me about jobs and wages; about bills and rents; about our towns; about why, for a long time, Britain has not felt like it works for them; about why young people feel written off; and about how we grow and feel the heat of growth in the chilly hills of east Lancashire. They ask whether their kids will have to move away to get a decent job, whether their NHS will get back to working properly and why the old, derelict industrial sites have been left sitting empty for years, blighting our communities. They ask me whether they should have hope for the future; they ask whether they should be able only to look back with fondness, instead of forward with confidence. Now they are being sold a story of grievance, anger and easy answers by the poisonous bubble-gum politics of parties such as Reform.

That is why today’s debate matters. To get Britain working is to get Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield working, too. It is to get our economy working for places like ours again after 14 years of austerity and decline. It is to get our NHS working again and to give people the hope of decent jobs, pay and financial security again. This work is not done with slogans or easy answers, but built considerately, constantly and carefully, after being so quickly dismantled over the years.

[Tom Hayes]

Beaufort community centre in my constituency has had its doors closed. Employees have been made redundant. For them, it was more than just a job. It was a team; it was a dedication to their community. Children have lost out on their early years and childcare support, and families are having to look around to find alternative provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that our community is only as strong as our spaces, and that as a consequence, the Liberal Democrats should take control of that site, reopen the doors and provide what the community needs?

[Oliver Ryan]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is an ardent campaigner for community spaces like the one he mentions, and I am sure he is taking that fight to his local council on behalf of his residents and the users of that facility. I am completely onside with him. I am not sure how much work my endorsement does, but I wish him all the best in his campaign.

Getting Britain working has to mean something real in places such as Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield; it has to mean decent work, proper wages, real skills and investment in our towns to give a decent future and hope to our kids and grandkids. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering on all those metrics, not in an overnight big bang, but through considered and substantial progress.

In my constituency, wages are up, employment is up, public and private investment is up and funding for our schools, colleges and local councils is up, while our local NHS waiting lists are down and access to care is going up. As a point of fact, one in seven people were on NHS waiting lists when we took office in 2024, including in my constituency. That is not Britain working. I am glad to say that the lists are coming down at a historically fast pace.

For too long, over the 14 years of the Tories, through austerity and cuts, too many constituents felt written off. Indeed, the numbers support that analysis. A big part of that came from a welfare system that the Tories built, which I believe was broken by design, with people signed off and written off, and young people and graduates left on the scrapheap. Under the Tories, the benefits bill ballooned by billions. They have no credibility on welfare reform. They talk tough, but it is this Government who are fixing the mess.

The previous Government built a system that classified 2.8 million people as unfit for work and left them there. They built universal credit in a way that actively penalised people for trying—where taking on a few extra shifts could leave someone worse off than before. They left disabled people and people with long-term health conditions in an impossible position, wanting to work and contribute, but terrified that if they tried to do so and it did not work out, they would lose the support that kept them afloat. That was not a welfare system; it was a trap and a cycle of insecurity, worklessness and despair that the Tories perpetuated, while at the same time demonising these people. They talked tough while their system was doing the exact opposite.

I welcome what this Government are doing to change that. The right to try is exactly the right approach: it gives disabled people the legal right to try work without the immediate fear of losing their benefits if things do not go perfectly. That might sound straightforward, but for constituents I have spoken to in Burnley—people who want to test for themselves part-time work and gradual return in order to rebuild their confidence—it could be transformative. The fear was real.

Disabled people are not a problem to be solved or written off. They are people with expertise in their own lives, people with needs and ambitions. The principle of “nothing about us without us” has to run through the design and implementation of this policy, and I will be considering this through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis. Genuine consultation and involvement backed up with an extra £3.5 billion to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into employment represents serious money and a serious commitment.

Good welfare policy has to do two things. It has to protect people who cannot work and who need support—the safety net—and it has to genuinely support people who can work back into employment and independence. It must not label them, park them or give up on them, but give them a hand up to get back on the horse. I am glad to see that this Government are committed to getting the balance right.

The issues facing young people are one of the sharpest challenges in towns like mine. In 2024, we inherited nothing short of a national disgrace: nearly a million young people—under-25s—were not in employment, education or training, and we had just had the worst Parliament on record for falling living standards. The number of NEET young people went up by a quarter of a million in the final years before the 2024 election, and youth unemployment was at a record high.

Once someone does not get their first leg up, the drift sets in and it becomes harder and harder to reverse. The human cost of that—the lost confidence, lost years and lost social impact—is real and lasting, especially in towns like mine. I have talked before in this Chamber about the great social ill of generational worklessness and how communities like mine, scarred from the closures of the mills and the mines, have never been given the chance nor the foundational support to properly recover.

Some young people have no parent who can tell them how to do a CV or an interview, so when they leave school they feel abandoned in a scary and increasingly expensive world where there are no opportunities for them. In the short term, a young person may turn to the benefit system, because their mate has. Next thing they know, they are in debt. Then they might have a family and get responsibilities—and change looks scary. They are still looking for work, but know in their heart that they do not have the confidence or the knowledge to get into the jobs market, and feel that they missed their window to do so. That is how people get left behind, how their children get left behind. It damages the social fabric of our country.

It is a disgrace that unemployment numbers shot up so high under the previous Government, because it was young people in towns like mine who suffered. Generationally, it is towns like mine that have always suffered—people have no hand up and no help; they are signed off, written off and politically demonised by the people who built the system that is trapping them there. I do not take a soft approach to welfare—of course, if someone can work, they absolutely should—but what has happened is not right.

Our youth guarantee is part of the answer, but I hope that the Secretary of State is looking to go further and faster in supporting young people. He is welcome to come to Burnley any time he likes so that I can show him what we can do for young people in our towns if we give them just a little support. At this point, I want to give a shout-out to Burnley jobcentre and all the staff there, with whom I was proud to host a jobs fair in Padiham earlier this year. I hope to host another in Burnley later this year.

The youth guarantee that the Secretary of State has set out is excellent: a work placement for young people aged 18 to 24 who have been seeking work for 18 months, with employment costs covered by Government. That is not a pilot scheme but an actual placement with real employment behind it. Businesses that take on a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months will get a £3,000 youth jobs grant. For the small and medium-sized manufacturers, engineering firms, construction companies and family businesses that make up most of Burnley’s economy, that kind of support genuinely means the difference between making a hire and not being able to afford to do so.

I care deeply about apprenticeships. We are backing 50,000 new starts, after apprenticeships collapsed under the last Government, as the Secretary of State said earlier. We are introducing a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. That rises to £5,000 if the apprentice has been out of work for six months. For a small business on a tight margin in Burnley town centre, that is not a minor detail; it is the difference between offering a young person a future and turning them away. Not every young person wants to go to university and not every young person should feel like they have somehow failed if they choose a different path. There should be real dignity and real ambition attached to practical skills, construction and practical trades in technical work.

Burnley has a proud industrial history. We have skilled people and businesses with genuine potential; what we have lacked for too long are the investment and infrastructure to match that potential. Under this Government, that investment is finally coming, and Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are ready for it.

Infrastructure matters. Transport links across east Lancashire still hold us back. Businesses need reliable connections to Manchester and across the north to expand and create jobs locally. Northern Powerhouse Rail and stronger rail connectivity are not luxuries for constituencies such as mine; they are economic necessities. I will always be here asking for more, particularly on buses and rail connections to Manchester, Leeds and Preston.

While I am on the topic of small businesses, let me say something about minimum wage increases, which seem to spur a bit of political conversation. In towns like Burnley, we either accept that we are in a race to the bottom and that only low wages will allow businesses to grow—a very Victorian take—or we follow the facts and figures and accept that in such places, where earnings are spent locally, a rising tide lifts all boats. Although paying bar or shop staff might be more expensive for a business this year, the cumulative effect of an increased minimum wage across the constituency strengthens both consumer and retail spending, building a stronger economy in the medium term.

[Marie Goldman]

Nobody, and certainly nobody in my party, would argue that we should not pay the lowest-paid more, but businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me—I am pretty sure this happens across the country—that the issue is the knock-on effect on the differential. When businesses pay the lowest-paid more, they have to pay some of the people higher up the ladder a bit more as well, to keep the differential. The cumulative effect of that—plus other things, such as national insurance contribution increases—is what has created difficulties. I am not having a go, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to pay their staff more while increasing their business?

[Oliver Ryan]

I am coming on to say, in fact, that of course the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business. I have heard, if not similar stories, then certainly experiences in the same vein. We had the debate on the national insurance increase in this place, but a good chunk of that increase, if not all of it, was allocated to NHS spend, which had a historic record increase under this Government, with £28 billion or £29 billion committed in the last financial year. A good chunk of that came from NI on employers. When we are looking at strengthening the national health service, asking employers to make a slightly bigger contribution to their employees’ healthcare is probably preferable to increasing the general tax take, which this Government pledged not to do in the election and have not done since.

As I say, the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business, but a downward drive on wages in towns like Burnley hits the whole economy, even if businesses initially want it. That is why real wages have grown more in the past 18 months of this Government than in the last 10 years of the Tory Government. Our economy is stronger because of the decisions we have made and defended.

I hear regularly from local businesses about the practical difficulties of trading with European markets since Britain lost unfettered access to those markets. They want fewer delays, lower costs and less uncertainty. They want to get on with it. The European partnership Bill needs to deliver practical answers for businesses like theirs. I am yet to meet a large exporting business in Burnley, Padiham or Brierfield that has been better off since Brexit. In fact, they report to me that they are losing business to European competitors every week.

None of that can be separated from what people in Burnley are dealing with financially right now: energy bills, food bills, fuel costs and rent. That comes up in almost every conversation I have. People want to work— they do work—but they want that work to pay enough to build a life. Cutting energy bills by up to 25% for manufacturers, driving forward on clean, home-grown energy, and investing in warmer homes and lower bills are not abstract policy objectives; they make the difference between a family building something and a family just about holding it together. What people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want is not unrealistic. They want decent jobs and opportunities for young people; they want a welfare system that opens doors, rather than closes them; they want wages that stretch far enough to actually build something; and they want investment in the towns that have waited long enough to feel confident about the future again.

I think of all that derelict land in Burnley that I started this speech by mentioning—the old sites behind fencing and weeds that have been sat there for the best part of 20 years while people walk past and wonder if anybody in power has noticed. Those sites would be a good place to get Burnley working, to get Britain working, and I look forward to progressing my campaign with the Minister on these issues.

Regeneration is not just about buildings; it is about whether people believe their town is moving forward. It is about whether a young person growing up in Burnley can look around and see the future there for themselves—right there, close to home, without having to pack up and leave to find it. For too long, people have felt like leaving is the only option. This Government’s job is to change that. This King’s Speech points in that direction with real intent and real investment behind it. After years of towns like mine feeling overlooked, I am proud to stand here trying to change that, because if we get this right, the people I represent will feel it, and they deserve to.

Youth Unemployment

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s description of this statement will do me good or harm among my right hon. and hon. Friends, but once again he makes the mistake of assuming that this problem is something that happened only in the last 18 months, which is where the Conservative party is going wrong. It is a long-term and deep-rooted problem. We need a different approach to tackle it, and that is why we need to offer hiring bonuses to businesses and to redirect the apprenticeship system to help young people, precisely because of the long-term scarring effects of young people being out of a job for any length of time. That can mean worse mental and physical health and, in some cases, even lower life expectancy than their peers in work. We have brought forward this package of measures today because of our concerns about that.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to hear that the employer NI exemption for staff under the age of 21 is staying in place. The new £3,000 hiring bonus for businesses taking on young people will make a real difference. How will the Secretary of State ensure that it is taken up by businesses and young people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield? Does he agree that the 40% drop in youth apprenticeships that we saw under the 14 years of the Tories left 1 million young people as NEETs and many without the opportunities and life expectations that they deserved?

[Pat McFadden]

We heard the Conservatives defend the 40% figure on the drop in youth apprenticeship starts—that is on the record. If they want to defend and own that record, so be it, but we want to prioritise opportunities for young people, and that is what we are doing with this package. There is a lot in it for employers in Burnley and for small and medium-sized businesses, which now have a new financial incentive to give a young person the vital start in life that can set them on a path of pride, purpose and dignity. That is what having a job gives you.

Budget Resolutions

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Budget sets out a serious and responsible direction for our country’s future and speaks directly to the needs of people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. It supports families and workers, puts the public finances back on stable ground and backs the businesses that are the backbone of towns like ours.

Crucially, we are already seeing real, measurable progress for Britain after 14 years of incompetence, failure, stagnation and rampant inflation. Growth has been upgraded to 1.5% this year and wages have risen faster in our first year than during the last decade the Conservatives were in power. For people in towns like ours, those are not abstract statistics; they are the difference between treading water—constant struggle—and finally feeling as though we are moving forward again as a community and as a country.

Families in my area have felt the squeeze more than most. I hear weekly about parents monitoring the thermostat hour by hour, commuters worried about every fare rise and households whose disposable income has simply evaporated with the cost of living. I welcome our plan, which gives people real relief right now: £150 off energy bills next year, rising to £300 for those who need it most; more support; more homes insulated and more homes built in towns in our constituencies; a freeze on rail fares, petrol duty and prescription charges; and, for our NHS, the largest reduction in waiting lists in almost 20 years, in addition to 250 new neighbourhood health centres, 5.2 million more NHS appointments and care brought closer to home, with more doctors and nurses.

However, it is not just short-term support that matters; it is long-term renewal. We are maintaining the highest levels of public investment in 40 years, because our constituencies cannot rebuild on the foundations left behind after austerity and the chaos of 14 years of Tory Britain. Better transport connections, stronger and better-funded local services, investment in skills and young people, and higher-paid, quality jobs—these remain the building blocks of renewal in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Ryan]

I will not, because of time.

We are doing all that while paying down the national debt and getting into surplus—something promised several times by the Tories but, as far as I am aware, never done. We are doubling the fiscal headroom, which is a momentous achievement—something we are probably not shouting about enough—and taking responsibility for the public finances after the rank mismanagement of the previous Government.

For too long, the welfare system that we inherited left working families too poor to eat and wrote off hundreds of thousands of people as too sick to work without offering them proper support. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the welfare bill soared by £33 billion, and he put an extra 229,000 people into the welfare system. The welfare bill doubled during the Conservatives’ time in office, which is bad for our budget, our communities and the people they wrote off. We are finally putting that right.

We are addressing poverty at the same time by scrapping the two-child limit, which is lifting 450,000 children out of poverty nationally, including a huge 5,170 children in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. We are guaranteeing jobs for people under the age of 25, ending long-term youth unemployment and ensuring that no young person is abandoned.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to make a point about support for businesses. We have not only maintained Government capital investment plans, but made sure that we will lower permanently business rates for local employers and multipliers for our high street. We are doing this to create a stable and long-term approach for businesses.

We are taking important steps such as relieving stamp duty on the first three years of new UK-listed companies for larger entities, which is our invitation to the world to do business here. That will have a direct effect on our competitiveness. We are putting in place more support for manufacturers in places such as my constituency, where energy bills have swelled over the last 10 years. We are extending capital allowances for business assets and leasing, and we are extending tariff suspension and support likewise. This will help some of my area’s largest employers to grow. In addition, we are extending NICs relief for those who hire veterans. Our measures include ISA reform to encourage investment into quite sizeable businesses. I am also interested in the call for evidence on firms with scale-up potential, which will end next year.

All these steps will create growth for the economy and help my constituents, and I greatly welcome this Budget.

Welfare Spending

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

Of course I know that, but if the hon. Lady had talked to as many people who receive PIP as I have, she would know that many people worry that if they go into training or work, they will then, when they are reassessed, lose their PIP. Even though in theory, yes, you can work if you can while you are getting PIP, people worry that because they are working it will be then be seen as them not actually needing it and that they do not actually have that level of health problem. That is why at the moment it is acting, in the way in works, as a barrier and a disincentive to work, and that is why it needs reform.

Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is ducking the challenge, accepting the status quo and continuing to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on keeping people on benefits, but that is exactly what the Labour party is doing. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister and the former Work and Pensions Secretary did have a go at doing something about it. They set out some welfare cuts—rushed and poorly thought-through, as I said at the time—but their Back Benchers were having none of it. We have never seen anything like it. It was the very definition of shambles in this Chamber. Right in the middle of the debate, their savings Bill became a spending Bill, with the Government frantically making concessions that we still live with, such as the Timms review into PIP.

I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), but what hope can we have for his review when it was conceived as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? It has taken months to even kick off the review and months to come up with the terms of reference. Now we have them, we see that welfare savings are off the table. And yes, I said “savings”, a word the Secretary of State was careful to steer clear of in questions last week. What a situation this is.

The Chancellor keeps talking about welfare savings; she did so again this morning. However, the review by the Minister for Social Security and Disability ruled out making any savings. The Secretary of State will not even utter the word. Who will win this argument? Will it be the hapless Chancellor with her back against the wall or the wily Welfare Secretary playing a longer game?

While Ministers spar behind the political scenes, the clock is ticking and the benefits bill keeps heading up and up towards £100 billion, with no prospect of the Government slowing that trajectory, let alone actually getting it down. Instead, as the Chancellor as good as told us this morning, the Government will turn to tax rises to fund welfare and more job-destroying, growth-killing policies, reducing opportunities and saddling future generations with the bill, leaving them to pay it off for decades to come. The Government have not only given up on saving money; they have given up on millions of people across Britain.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

On savings and leaving the next generation with a bill, can the hon. Lady remind the House just how much the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), increased Department for Work and Pensions spending on welfare during his time in the Department? The figure I have on the tip of my tongue is somewhere north of £30 billion. Could she comment on that?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Gentleman thinks he is so clever, but I am sorry to say this is a whole lot more serious than that. [Interruption.] I am glad Labour Members liked that. The fact is, if the hon. Gentleman looked a little further than his time in politics, back to 2010, he would know that the welfare bill and unemployment figures came down, and that we had the huge reform of universal credit, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which made a huge difference. [Interruption.] As has been chuntered by those on the Government Front Bench, yes, of course, the pandemic made a difference. We had a set of reforms going on, and then those on the Front Bench and some of their predecessors—there has been a certain amount of turnover—came in and gave up on those reforms. Where are we now? There are no savings and no plans to get people off welfare and into work.

However, it does not have to be this way. The country knows that this is not working, and people want change. They want a fairer system: one where people who do the right thing are rewarded; where work does pay; where people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their family makes sense; where there is help for those who need it, but not for just anyone who might fancy it; and where welfare is a safety net, not a way of life. It might be hard for Members on the Government Benches to hear, but this is what people out there want. They want it now—let us get on with it.

The Conservatives have set out our common-sense proposals to start fixing the welfare system. We would stop sickness benefits for people with lower-level mental health conditions like anxiety and reform Motability, putting an end to taxpayer-funded cars for people who have conditions like ADHD and tennis elbow. We would bring back face-to-face assessments, which are going down under this Labour Government, and change the sick note system so that it does not just funnel people out of the office and on to benefits. We would prioritise Brits in our welfare system, stopping people with indefinite and limited leave to remain claiming benefits. Of course, we also believe in retaining the two-child benefit cap, because it is fiscally responsible and fair. Removing the cap would cost more than £3 billion and would be deeply unfair on families who are not on benefits—the couples who decide they cannot afford another child, but would pay taxes for someone else to do just that. The Conservatives are the only party fully committed to the two-child benefit cap—no ifs, no buts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Today’s motion represents the same failed punitive and cruel social security system that the Conservative party had for 14 years—a system that did not help people into good jobs or get social security spending down, and that led only to destitution. By contrast, our approach is to create good jobs, get good training in place, and help people into those jobs.

Let’s talk about the record of the Conservative party. Let’s talk about the rise in employment. The rise in employment was not among those who they punished. Non-graduate employment fell from about 73% when we were last in office, to 68% when the Conservatives left office. The rise in jobs was not among the non-graduates who they were punishing or those who they drove into destitution; the people who took those jobs were the increasing number of graduates. What was the cruelty that they put forward? They were measures that saw someone sanctioned because they went to their wife’s funeral, or that saw someone get punished because they went to a job interview—sanction after sanction, cruelty after cruelty.

It is the same with the Conservatives’ cuts—cuts that led to 3 million foodbank parcels being handed out. I did not know what a food bank was when I was growing up, yet every one of us in the Chamber knows what they are today. We see the growing destitution and homelessness before us, but what we did not see was any improvement in our country. There was no economic growth, and no extra good jobs. Cruelty and futility—that was the record of the Conservative party.

Think about where we are today. What do we need to do to ensure that people have decent jobs? We know that to live a decent life, a working family is this country needs to include two parents earning about £35,000 each, yet in 80% of this country the average wage is less than that. About 40% of full-time jobs pay less than £35,000. Going beyond that—[Interruption.] Would someone on the Opposition Benches like to intervene?

[Oliver Ryan]

To quote the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend thinks he is “so clever”, arguing with facts! Those facts are not particularly appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches. Does he agree that what is important in this debate is the people who were left destitute by the policies of 14 years of Conservative government?

[Dr Sandher]

I could not agree more. When we go forward and think about how to create a good life for people, we first need to create good jobs, but we also need to ensure that people have the training and support they need to get there. That is exactly what this Government are doing.

We are creating good jobs by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy, and ensuring that the private sector gets the support it needs to work with businesses and—yes, of course—with trade unions. We are ensuring that there are good jobs for people to get into in the green economy and healthcare. We are creating the good jobs that people need and, more than that, the training they need. Through our work on the social security system, we are making sure that people can try work without the fear of losing their social security payments. That is the difference between us and the Conservative party. It is a difference in values.

We believe that every single person should be able to afford to live a decent life, that we should create good jobs for them to move into, and that the job of the Government is to work with the private sector to create those jobs directly, so that people can work and earn a decent wage. We are not about being punitive or cruel, and our measures will not lead to more destitution. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I am proud to be on these Benches; I do not know how they feel today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute briefly on this huge topic. While I am glad to discuss welfare reform, I am perplexed as to why the Conservatives would want to do so, given their completely disastrous record. In response to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), I wonder whether he has read the plans for their £23 billion-worth of welfare cuts, on the back of the fag packet on which it is displayed, because there are no details to speak of on things such as housing benefit, which was raised by the Minister beforehand.

I do not even think it is brass neck any more from the Conservatives; it is just desperate. Their hope is that we forget what they left us only last year, and forget what they were like in government: employment is lower than before the pandemic; 10 million households are now net recipients of Government support; 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty; 2.8 million people have been left languishing on waiting lists and out of work; and 1 million young people are out of work and have been left jobless in the first straits of their lives—all while we have record welfare spending, with billions of pounds spent every year on failure. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was at DWP—I made this point earlier—we saw the biggest rise in welfare spending since records began in 1996, including £33 billion in one year alone.

The Conservatives have zero credibility on this issue and a record of expensive failure. It is a disastrous legacy, which they ought to be utterly ashamed of. They left people in this country languishing on benefits and left out of work, and left us to pick up the bill for years to come. I have touched on their plan, so I will not say any more on that, but it feels a bit like standing next to an arsonist who is watching a house on fire and complaining, “Someone should really put that out,” having started the fire.

I am short of time, but I want to say something about reform—real reform, not the turquoise Tories of Reform UK, who I notice are not here for the debate and who I believe would destroy the welfare system as we understand it. We all know that welfare spending must come down, and we all want to get people into work—young people, disabled people and those who can, want and should work. The current system—the Conservatives’ system—does not enjoy public support system because of the Tories’ failure, and risks undermining the whole welfare state and social contract as we know it; hence our reforms earlier this year. If we believe in helping those who really need it—the disabled, the sick and those unable to work, whom the welfare state is designed for—we must make the tough choices that the Conservatives did not make over 14 years.

The current front door for the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose, and I am glad that we are doing away with it, but neither is the assessment for personal independence payments, as it is considered by many to be out of date and unfit for the modern wave of claimants living with mental health conditions and likewise. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on whether more reform in this area would be welcome and will come.

The arguments made for reform, which were explored in the papers earlier this year, still stand. Too many people are rolling on to PIP, too many are failing and falling out of work ill, and too many, having done so, are not re-entering the jobs market. So I am glad that we are stimulating more people into work through measures such as our £1 billion Pathways to Work guarantee. Because of the sheer number of applicants and particularly of successful applicants since the pandemic, we have to consider the appropriateness of some of the thresholds for people currently applying for PIP to ensure that the support is still there for those who really need it.

Disabled People in Poverty

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

Let us say it straight: disabled people have been let down by 14 years of Tory Government. The number of disabled people in working households living in poverty doubled under the Tories’ watch, to 1.3 million people last year and the pay gap for disabled people is higher now at 13% than it was a decade ago.

I will touch briefly on the upcoming PIP reforms—I did have a bigger speech planned, but we are short on time. An unsustainable welfare system, one that does not enjoy public support or give disabled people enough good support, does disabled people no favours. What does do them a favour is scrapping the work capability assessment and providing extra funding to get people into to work. To have no answer to the additional 1,000 people a day who are currently going into the PIP system is to keep one’s head in the sand and to provide no real answers to the failure of the current system, which is not flexible or supportive enough.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Ryan]

I will not give way. The principle of the social contract of the welfare state is at stake, and this Government are defending it.

Winter Fuel Payment

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Louise Jones]

One reason why I decided to get into politics—I was quite happy doing something else—was because I was looking around this country and seeing the huge systemic issues that were facing us. None of those issues would go away if the Government just said, “We’re going to keep giving out pots of money to people,” and the hon. Lady knows that. As a proud member of the Labour party, I support people receiving fair pay for their fair work, and I support the rises that we gave to our nurses, our soldiers and our teachers. I am very proud of that. We face so many systemic issues that we know we need to make some big changes. Things such as GB Energy, which was in our manifesto that millions of people voted for, is a huge change that will make a difference.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend talks about manifesto commitments, and it was a clear manifesto commitment of this Government that we would provide the triple lock throughout this Parliament—something that was only ever suspended under the Conservative party. Does she agree that the £1,500 increase to the state pension that pensioners will see over the course of this Parliament will be a good thing, and put cash into the pockets of pensioners that they did not have under the previous Government?

[Louise Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The triple lock is a serious commitment that we are utterly committed to, and it will make a difference to every single pensioner in this country—far more than trying to pretend that we do not face the systemic problems that this country faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

This winter, pensioners across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages felt abandoned by the Labour Government. Many across this country voted for a Labour Government in good faith, thinking that they would actually have a reduction in their energy bills of £300, only to discover that many pensioners were going to lose their winter fuel payment, which is a lifeline to pensioners, who have served their communities and worked hard their whole lives. It was brought in by a Labour Government and never abolished during the entire time that the Conservatives and the coalition were in power. There is a reason for that: it is fair, equitable and ensures that no one is left behind. The reason why it was not scrapped before is that a means-tested mechanism was not in place, so it was quite shocking to see that the first act by the new Chancellor was to scrap a winter fuel payment that Labour initially brought in without an impact assessment.

[Oliver Ryan]

Will the hon. Lady make it clear whether it is the policy of the Conservative party to reintroduce a universal winter fuel payment at the next election?

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this important Bill. Fraud is a serious issue, and we simply cannot tolerate the level of fraud that the previous Government left us with. In the year 2023-24, we lost almost as much to fraud as we spent on defence.

We have all heard the stories of people fraudulently claiming covid support and benefits to which they were not entitled. People have been claiming from the safety net not for security in their time of need, but to feather their own nests on the backs of British taxpayers. I am glad that this Government are serious about protecting public money from fraudsters, and I have no time for the whataboutery of the Liberal Democrats.

This robust Bill closes loopholes, strengthens enforcement and prioritises financial accountability. It is a great step forward for the real change that we promised at the election. The message from me and my constituents is quite clear: those who defraud or attempt to defraud the British public in any way deserve to feel the full weight of the law. I believe in doing what is right to protect taxpayers and hard-working people in business, which is why I will not stand by while fraudsters take advantage of the system. The Bill says, “If you have defrauded the British taxpayer, we will come for you, and we will not mess about.” That is what people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want.

Turning specifically to the strengthening of measures on covid fraud, I am proud that one of the first actions taken by this Government was to appoint the covid corruption commissioner, and that the Bill bolsters the commissioner’s powers and doubles the time limit in which civil claims can be brought, among other measures. A typical example of rampant covid corruption was the bounce back loans, which have already been referred to by other Members. Those loans saw millions of pounds of public money shovelled out of the doors of the Treasury without proper oversight. We have all read the stories and heard about some of the heinous outcomes—huge amounts of public money gone to fake companies as well as people using stolen identities or providing products that were either defective or just plain did not exist. Meanwhile, I have had to explain to my constituents why basic public services have gone to the wall.

To put it into perspective, all in, the previous Government handed the equivalent of £20,000 of taxpayers’ cash to fraudsters every minute of the last Parliament, and now Conservative Members moan that there is no money for anything. If this Bill had become law earlier, much of that fraud could have been prevented by allowing stronger eligibility verification procedures, faster detection of fraudulent transactions and faster financial recovery powers for quicker action against fraudsters.

Moving on to benefit fraud and the Department for Work and Pensions, the same principle applies: those who defraud the British public will feel the full weight of the law, and will have nowhere to hide. We have a moral duty to recover every penny of public money that has been defrauded, and I am glad that the Bill full-throatedly says so. Benefit fraud has tripled since 2019, and since then we have lost almost £10 billion overall to fraud and error. As the now Leader of the Opposition said while in government, fraudsters were let “off the hook” by the Tories. People who work hard to pay their taxes deserve to know that every pound stolen is a pound that cannot be spent on public services, and they deserve to have that money returned. It is simply unforgivable that the previous Government allowed fraud in the benefit system to get to this level.

By voting in favour of the Bill, we will allow this Government crucial investigatory and search and seizure powers that are essential if we really want to tackle fraud in this country. I know that there will be concern from some quarters, but I am reassured that the Secretary of State has taken into consideration the necessary safeguards that will balance the need for effective fraud prevention and recovery. Indeed, if during the passage of the Bill she finds a way to be tougher and go further, she should do it; I am not sure whether two years is enough for a driving ban.

The powers we are extending to the Public Sector Fraud Authority have already proven effective. They are used by the DWP and by HMRC, and by expanding them, we will recover more funds and bring more fraudsters to justice. This is the first update to those powers in 20 years, as the Secretary of State said. Of course, DWP investigators should be given warrant powers, to save police time if nothing else.

The safeguards are in the Bill to make sure we tackle fraud effectively and, as importantly, protect people’s rights, as the Secretary of State has also said. To address a point raised a second ago by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), decisions will be made by a human being in the final stages, as with any decision that affects somebody’s benefits. I think that is right, and clearly it is something that the Secretary of State has tried to stipulate.

People in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield expect their money to be used effectively, and they demand accountability, with fraudsters who exploit the system being held to account and locked up if necessary. As the Secretary of State said, the Bill is tough but fair, with measures designed to save an awful lot of money over the next five years. That is a promising step that I believe will restore public trust and tackle financial mismanagement. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the issue so seriously—more power to her elbow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I am very happy to share the data: there are 200,000 more pensioners living in poverty after 14 years of Conservative government. I am also very happy to publish information showing a 152% increase in pension credit claims, thanks to the big, bold campaign run by this Labour Government.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents want a fair and robust welfare system, but they have no truck with fraud. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that she is doing everything she can to crack down on fraud, and to make sure that those who genuinely need help get it?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is correct to raise this issue. As I said, we will not tolerate the current levels of fraud in our welfare system. He will be pleased to note the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of the forthcoming fraud, error and debt Bill, which will begin the necessary work to drive down fraud in the Department.