Andrew Western MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will forgive me if I have not understood her correctly, but there is specific provision in the Bill on the debt recovery powers to limit the amount that can be clawed back to 40% of anybody’s capital, but if I have misunderstood that, I am happy to have a conversation with her afterwards. I hope that I have set out some of the steps we are taking in the Bill and more broadly to ensure support for vulnerable people. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), was right to highlight the scale of covid fraud and the lack of safeguards in place to protect the public purse. He highlighted the carer’s allowance review, which will report this summer, not next, but we are already learning the lessons of that. Much like the proposals in the Bill, data is key, so we have secured funding to extend the verify earnings and pensions service system of alerts from HMRC to 100% of claims. We will ensure in this Bill that the eligibility verification measure information is processed quickly to reduce large overpayments, and to avoid a repeat of what happened on the last Government’s watch with carer’s allowance. The hon. Member for Torbay raised the use of AI, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. There will always be a human decision maker on each of these powers, so where decisions are made, a human—not AI—will make that call. For EVM, a flag would be passed to a human to establish benefit eligibility. For debt recovery, it would be passed to a human to assess vulnerability and the ability to pay. For information gathering, it would be passed to a human for investigation where there is a suspicion of fraud. For search and seizure, a warrant would be granted by a judge. At all times, a human is making those decisions, as is right and proper, given the powers that we are talking about. According to the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, there is no doubt that had the Conservatives had longer, their policies would have driven fraud down further and faster than our proposals will. Thankfully, we do not have the opportunity to test that theory. Given their appalling record—with fraud and error escalating every year since the pandemic and standing at £9.7 billion last year—I dread to think what they would have done when they turned their attention to these matters. The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire went on to ask whether the independent person would report on the use of powers. Yes, and those reports—on both the PSFA side and the DWP side—will be placed before Parliament annually. He asked about non-drivers and the point of suspending licences when not everybody drives. Well, short of taking the power to prevent somebody from walking, I fail to see how much further we could have gone in that regard. However, I recognise—as I hope he does—that that is only one of a suite of measures that we are considering to move us forward in the powers available to us. Of course, it is important to recognise that the introduction of an independent person was not considered necessary by the Conservative Government in the third-party data measures that they proposed under their Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We are introducing that measure not just for the PSFA powers or the eligibility verification measures, but for information-gathering powers and powers of search and seizure. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is concerned, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is conservative to want to tackle benefit fraud, and that we should ignore the £7.4 billion-worth of welfare fraud last year. I certainly do not think that it is conservative to go after public sector fraud; in fact, if it were slightly more conservative, we might not be in the terrible position we are in now. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) raised a number of important questions. Time prevents me from running through them all now, but I would be delighted to meet him to discuss them further. I was especially concerned by the case that he raised. One potential benefit of the eligibility verification measure is that it will allow us to detect overpayments earlier, but clearly we want to ensure that the DWP is handling such issues correctly first time. The ICO was mentioned by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend. Just to clear that up, it was not a letter received into the Department; the ICO published on its website today its findings and thoughts on the Bill at this stage. It recognises the steps that we have taken on proportionality, and I welcome those comments. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) has concerns about banks and the potential erosion of data protection powers—that is not my view. The Bill will involve very limited data sharing. The Department for Work and Pensions is not monitoring accounts, and we will fine banks if they overshare in that space. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made an important contribution. To clarify, the Bill is not predicated on saving £10 billion in welfare fraud; it sets out to save £1.5 billion over five years, but it is part of overall measures to save £8.6 billion over that period, because we do not accept the level of fraud in the system at present. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) suggested that the Bill subjects millions of people to unwarranted financial surveillance. To give Members absolute clarity, we will not receive transactional information from banks, we will not look in bank accounts directly, and we will not ask banks to take decisions on whether somebody has committed fraud. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised the question of clause 50 on the PSFA side of the Bill and asked what constitutes fraud. For clarity, it is standard for powers to be taken by the Secretary of State—or a Minister in this case—but in practice, qualified and experienced decision makers will consider cases as authorised officers. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to raise clause 91 and the removal of driving licences. I would gently say to him that this is an existing power held by the Child Maintenance Service. The question of liable persons and whether removal is proportionate would be a matter for a judge; it would only happen after repeated attempts to secure repayment, and before any disqualification occurs, an individual will always be given the opportunity to agree a repayment plan. This is a power of last resort, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he has specific concerns about the pursuit of fraud in Northern Ireland, I am happy to follow them up. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke from the heart about the plight of his constituents and the challenges they face. I want to assure him that this is not a Bill that is intended to focus on the low-hanging fruit of vulnerable people; that is why it includes some of the protections I set out earlier, and it is why we are putting in place independent oversight for the debt recovery and eligibility verification measures. He asked about the right of appeal, and I can confirm that the rights of review and of appeal against a ruling in the debt recovery space are written into the Bill. The important question of appointees is one that I want to address directly, given the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about his constituent’s sister. To be very clear, that is something we had significant concerns about after the previous introduction of the third-party data measure, and the system will remove appointees. There may be circumstances in which those bank accounts need to be checked if the appointee receives benefits themselves, but if they do not, they will be screened out.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, we will inform Parliament as to who that will be, but we will go through a proper recruitment process. If the hon. Lady is talking about the independent person to be appointed for the eligibility verification measures, we will go through a thorough recruitment process to ensure they have the expertise needed. They will report every year to Parliament, and it is right and appropriate that they do so. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his support for part 1 of the Bill, but I understand his concerns about the powers as they pertain to the Department for Work and Pensions. One of his principal concerns was about banks perhaps being unable to exercise those powers appropriately; what we are proposing is not intended as a decision-making action, but as a data push. Banks will not make decisions—a human within the DWP will carry out that investigation. He has raised concerns about potential errors in the system, and to be clear, we acknowledge that this is a new power. We intend to scale it up in a “test and learn” phase, doing so gradually so that we can get it right, but we simply cannot ignore the problem and not look to take these powers when we had a £7.4 billion problem with fraud in the DWP last year. Turning to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), I think I have already dealt with the issue of carer’s allowance overpayments and how we are starting to put that right. To clarify again, we are not accessing bank accounts; banks will be doing that for us, but they will not be taking decisions as to somebody’s benefit eligibility. The hon. Gentleman said that we should look at the efficacy of existing powers to request information. We are doing that through the updating of information-gathering powers and the right to compel information digitally. We will be moving to a list of excluded organisations, rather than a list of organisations from which we are able to compel information. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) raised a series of concerns, which I know come from a good place. I am very happy to meet her to discuss some of these powers—it is important that we get this right—but on the particular question of the legal advice and article 8, although she is correct that Big Brother Watch did commission some legal opinion, we are confident that the powers in the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are different powers, distinct from the third-party data powers put forward as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and we do think that they are compatible with the ECHR, including the right to a private life under article 8. That is specifically because the third-party data elements are now narrower, and because we have included the safeguards that I have set out. We think the measures are justified in accordance with the law and are proportionate. The final speech was from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). Again, I felt it was constructive, if slightly fantastical at points, and I may disagree about the extent to which the Conservatives had more sensible plans that have since been abandoned by this Government. On the question of public sector fraud, I note that she pointed to action to be taken to try to claw back public money. Can I suggest to her that they seek to put that in a press release? If they are not enough of a laughing stock because of their previous behaviour, they would be after seeking to claim that they had a positive story to tell in that space. I will finish by reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: whoever you are—big businesses, covid fraudsters, organised criminal gangs seeking to defraud the system or individuals knowingly cheating on their benefits—it is not acceptable. We have a major problem, and we are taking the powers needed to act. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  We value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and in supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paid paternity leave, play a key role in their ability to do that. My hon. Friend is right to cite the planned parental leave review. That is being led by colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, and I will write to them on his behalf to suggest a meeting.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  The Government keep the rates of benefits, state pensions and statutory pay under regular review. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced to Parliament on 30 October that, subject to parliamentary approval, parental pay will increase in line with the consumer prices index at the rate of 1.7% from April 2025.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, a number of benefits are currently delivered under agency agreements. It is very much for the Scottish Government to broker a conversation with us about either extending those agreements or bringing them to an early conclusion. I am yet to have any such conversations, but should I have any, I will be very happy to let him know.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The assessment I have made is of a trend that is up, up, up after 14 years of the Conservative party failing to act. We lost £9.7 billion in fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions last year, and we have lost £35 billion since the pandemic. That is too much, which is why I hope colleagues will support the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill on Second Reading later.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to identify that in the PIP space the Department has introduced a blend of phone, video and face-to-face assessments with the aim of delivering a more efficient and user-centred service. Since telephone and video assessments have been introduced there has been no evidence to suggest that these delivery channels are less effective than face-to-face assessments in detecting fraudulent claims. In 2023-24, PIP overpayments accounted for just 0.4% of the DWP’s overall spend on PIP but I assure my hon. Friend we will keep a close eye on that.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Adoptive Parents: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank all who have taken part in the discussion for their thoughtful and insightful comments. As the hon. Lady said, I recently received a written question from her about this issue, and I commend her for her continued support and campaigning in this crucial area. Becoming an adoptive parent is, of course, rewarding, but it is without doubt challenging too. It is admirable when anybody steps up to that role, let alone those who do so while in work. The Government do not underestimate the life-changing difference that adoptive parents up and down the country make every single day. Breaking down barriers to opportunity is one of this Government’s key missions for the country. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure employed parents can balance their work and home lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure there is more flexibility and support for working families, and our reforms to get Britain working include transforming employment support so that people with specific barriers to work, such as parents, receive personalised help to overcome the particular hurdles they face. That not only supports our No. 1 mission—to drive growth in every corner of the country—but creates a cycle of opportunity. People cannot fulfil their potential if they are struggling to afford life’s essentials, but good work brings security and dignity. That is why good work will always be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and supporting families. Children cannot fulfil their potential if they grow up in poverty in any familial setting, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country if the next generation is held back. That is why we have already started the urgent work needed to get the child poverty taskforce up and running. It is working to publish a comprehensive and ambitious child poverty strategy that will consider all children across the United Kingdom, whether in care, adopted or living with birth parents. It is worth reiterating that maternity payments such as statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are intended to help protect the health and wellbeing of women and their babies, rather than to assist with the costs associated with a new child. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is specifically raising the issue of adoptive parents. When a family welcomes a new child into their world, it is only right that they have the time to bond—a point that the hon. Lady made eloquently in introducing the debate, and that all hon. Members reiterated. It was genuinely important to hear about Kirsty’s experience of thinking about adopting a second child—an “assistant train driver”. She is one of the many people who are having to make very difficult choices. I have constituents in a similar position, and it is incredibly important that we hear such testimony when considering these issues. The hon. Lady also highlighted that there is no guarantee on the means-tested local authority payments, as was reiterated by the shadow Minister, and that many councils do not have policies for that, before going on to set out that adoption saves the economy £4.2 billion a year. She, like myself, is a former senior local authority leader in Greater Manchester. Having been deputy leader of Stockport council, she knows not only of the benefits of adoption for education and health, but of the many pressures within the local authority care system and the fact that secure, permanent placements are the best thing for the child. That support is priceless, and I think we are all agreed on that today. The hon. Lady went on to say that new adoptive parents need to take time off to enable a child to settle in their new home. I absolutely agree. There are many complex needs that adoptive parents may face in settling their new child in, and balancing that with their employment needs, whether they are self-employed or in mainstream employment, poses many issues. I agree that improvements need to be made to the parental system. If she will bear with me, I will make a specific promise to her on how we can best move this forward. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) also highlighted his local government experience. It is important to draw that out because we have all been corporate parents. We understand the importance of the role played both by the care system and by foster carers, kinship carers, and especially adoptive parents making a decision to permanently offer a home, love and support to a young person. He set out some of the specific challenges faced in Northern Ireland, for which I am grateful. He is right to highlight the spiralling statistics for children in care. As I just mentioned, it is critical to anybody with local government experience that sustainability and feasibility of adoption for all is imperative. I am very much aware of the points coming out in this debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, asked a specific question on the adoption support fund. He is, as ever, entirely right to raise this very reasonable question because current funding is, I think, only set until April 2025. If I may, I will write to the Department for Education directly and share the response I receive. I do not want to speak on behalf of another Department today, in case the information I provide turns out to be inaccurate, but I will follow up with the hon. Gentleman directly on that. The hon. Gentleman also rightly set out the challenge of addressing the stereotypical perception of adoption as receiving a babe in arms. More often than not, people could be opening up their home and family to older children, those with very complex needs, or those who have experienced significant trauma. That requires time off too. Time off is required not just for a newborn child who needs a parent with them for obvious reasons throughout the day, but potentially for an older child’s significant, complex needs. The hon. Gentleman’s point reflects the real-world circumstances that many adoptive parents face. The shadow Minister set out many of the advances that have been made over the past 14 years in this space, and I fully acknowledge those; but that prompts the question how, despite those advances, we have ended up in this position. I accept that we moved forward by introducing, as he said, automatic pupil premium allocation, the adoption support fund, adoption leave and so on. The challenge we face is how we can collectively encourage people to come forward as adopters, kinship carers and foster carers. As a Government, we have a responsibility to make that process as easy as possible. When we look at the outcomes of children who grow up in what one might consider traditional care settings—that is, a children’s home—versus the outcomes of children who grow up in a more traditional family unit, whether adoptive or foster care, or with birth parents, the statistics are stark. If we look at the number of care leavers in the prison system, for instance, or the level of qualifications, some of the figures are incredibly concerning. The shadow Minister’s point was very well made. Turning back to my substantive comments, we want to ensure that parental leave is supporting all working families as well as possible, so the Government have committed to a review of the parental leave system and work is already under way on planning for that review. Enabling parents to take time off work not only allows for bonding time but ensures that they are able to give a child the care that they need. In the case of adoption, that ability to connect and care, as we have just discussed, is essential in terms of securing the permanence of any adoption placement. For all those reasons, employed adoptive parents have broadly the same rights and protections as birth parents, in that statutory adoption leave is a day one right, but of course there is the anomaly that we are speaking about today. I therefore want to give the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a clear assurance that I will write in to that parental leave review and make sure that what we have discussed today is fed into that process, because whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of this, I think that we can all accept that there is a gap, and that we all want as many people as possible to be able to come forward as carers. The gap is potentially a barrier to that for some people, not least because we have that means-tested, not especially well advertised, not-brilliant-levels-of-uptake current system, which I think we would all want looked at. In the meantime, where adopters do not qualify for that statutory payment they have the local authority option, but I would like to highlight some of the wider support, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, did in his contribution. There is not only advice, information and counselling, but means-tested support. Potentially, on top of that, there is support for new parents—any new parents—in terms of potential eligibility for universal credit, child benefit, and the Sure Start maternity grant, all of which can help all families with the cost of raising children, especially those in need of extra support. I think I will leave it there, Ms Furness, with just a final thank you to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for calling this debate. We recognise the contributions of self-employed people, who are a key part of our economy, and we appreciate the valuable difference that adopters make. Therefore, it is only right that we have taken the time today —I am pleased to have had the chance—to consider how we support the remarkable people who take on both roles at the same time. I reiterate that I will write to the Department for Business and Trade about the issues that have been raised in this debate, and about how the debate can feed into the review that I mentioned earlier, because it is crucial that we accept that there is an anomaly in the system. I will, obviously, send the hon. the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a copy of my correspondence.