Siân Berry MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the WASPI women are right to use the word “gaslighting” to describe the Government’s suggestion that there is no problem here and that everybody knew? They are not standing by the pledge they made in opposition; it is as if that pledge was never made. That strikes harshly at women who have spent their whole lives facing other aspects of sexism, as she describes.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe the shadow Secretary of State believes that the law is currently applied equally and free of structural biases. But given the unfortunate politicisation of all this, does the Minister now back the chair of the Sentencing Council, who says that the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender and that sentencing guidelines of any kind—if they were to be dictated in any way by Ministers—would breach an important principle?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  For weeks, the Government’s active trailing of welfare cuts has generated genuine fear. Disabled people in Brighton Pavilion are writing to me in terror. Will the Secretary of State apologise for this and reassure the public that benefit changes will not take place this calendar year or without parliamentary votes in this House?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that what has been announced today falls short? Access to services that are available in a local area—presumably by appointment, and in a different setting—does not constitute the same availability of support as having properly qualified counsellors in schools.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate and for talking about the importance of these programmes, and for mentioning anti-bullying programmes as well. I also thank the other hon. Members who have spoken about the wider mental health crisis and the extent to which teachers are picking up the pieces —these are all vital issues to talk about. I am proud to say there has been some groundbreaking work on mental health support in educational settings in my constituency. A campaign led by young people and backed by Citizens UK secured funding for more counselling capacity in local schools, and is a genuine cause of city-wide pride. The £200,000 of investment from Brighton and Hove city council will support hundreds of young people with counselling across the city, including many in my constituency. I was very inspired by the work of the students pressing the councils for this support—notably Fi Abou-Chanad and Tally Wilcox, who put their case directly to the council—and spoke about them in my maiden speech. I am grateful to Brighton and Hove city council, which backed up its words with funds to support this vital work, and I am pleased that, following the pilot, it will now fund 2025-56 as well. The key request now from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and Citizens UK is for Government-funded school counselling provision delivered by specialist children and young people counsellors and psychotherapists on a statutory basis. I welcome the pledges from the Government to introduce a mental health professional accessible in every school, and I hope we will see real investment in a national school counselling programme promised by Ministers today. To conclude, I once again thank the hon. Member for Redditch for securing this debate, and once again pay tribute to the courage and campaigning of the young people who I know are out there all around the country, in all our constituencies, demanding support. Nothing could be of more value or more importance than investing in the thriving of the mental health of our young people, and particularly in schools.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak to this minor amendment. I just wanted to point something out about the wording of amendment 36. In clause 98(2) there are two instances of the letter (a). I know which (a) the Government intend the amendment to refer to, but I wondered whether the wording could be clarified.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister consider the covert aspect of the requirement? The information is not given voluntarily by the person concerned. That is the authoritarian surveillance aspect and that is what concerns me the most; it is not merely that the Secretary of State is seeking useful information.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. The amendment covers direct deduction orders relating to social security payment debt of individuals who are no longer on benefits and not employed within the pay-as-you-earn system, as well as the use of powers to disqualify debtors from driving—a power I oppose, and we will debate that when we come to schedule 6. The clause introduces the power for the Department for Work and Pensions to recover funds directly from a person’s bank account without a court warrant. The Secretary of State may make a direct deduction order in respect of a recoverable amount, where the debtor is no longer on benefits and is not employed within the PAYE system. As I understand it, the powers apply to all benefits under sections 71 to 78 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, including universal credit, and employment and support allowance. The powers apply to not only overpayments caused by deliberately fraudulent behaviour, but negligent oversight, incorrect statements and failure to disclose information. A DDO may be issued in relation to a joint account, if that is the only account that the debtor has. The amendment would replace the conditions for such powers under proposed new section 80A(5) of the 1992 Act and would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees that the payment is due, or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and appropriate. The language and wording almost exactly mirrors that in clause 12, on page 9 of the Bill, which provides that protection for debtors to public authorities. If the likes of potential covid fraudsters and corrupt company directors get the protection of a court or tribunal decision, it is difficult to understand why a benefit recipient should not get the same. It is worth noting that we already have powers to address the scenario where a debtor is no longer on benefits and not in PAYE employment. In such cases, the DWP can recover overpayments through county court enforcement proceedings. I am aware that the DWP argues that the county court method of enforcement is slow and resource-intensive. However, that is not a good reason to jettison judicial oversight from a process that allows the Government to take money directly from individuals’ bank accounts. My amendment 7 seeks to address the concern that those powers hand an extraordinary amount of discretion to the Secretary of State, as there is no threshold to determine what constitutes hardship or what would be fair in all the circumstances. Furthermore, as far as I can see, no floor is defined for the amount of money that must be left in the debtor’s bank account. I understand that the DWP maintains that the power is like those used by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, but that is not comparing like with like. Child maintenance is money owed—already defined to be affordable—by one parent to ensure provision for their dependant who does not live with them. That differs from an individual claiming money from the social security system who has been overpaid, potentially through no fault or a simple mistake of their own, where restitution may be extremely difficult to manage fairly and affordably. Furthermore, I understand that HMRC powers have safeguards: before the powers are exercised, debtors must receive a face-to-face visit from an HMRC agent; and HMRC must retain at least £5,000 across the debtor’s accounts. By contrast, the Bill leaves those protections to the DWP’s discretion, based on the debtor’s representations and covertly obtained bank statements. The amendment is also needed because the direct deduction powers as drafted would not be powers of last resort. For example, there is no requirement for the minimum number of times a liable person has failed to engage with the DWP before the powers can be exercised; there is no definition of whether someone has been given a reasonable opportunity to settle the debt; and there is no requirement for an in-person visit from the DWP. Such safeguards matter, because benefit recipients may not be engaging due to incapacity, illness, mental health problems or other genuine reasons. If those circumstances are ongoing, this will be an ineffective deterrent to force people to engage and repay their debts. The amendment would mirror protections in part 1 of the Bill by limiting the availability of direct deduction order powers to cases where the debt is accepted, either by the debtor or by judicial determination. That would prevent the DWP from lowering the legal threshold at which funds can be removed directly from an individual’s bank account. I hope that we will come back to this issue at a later stage, as I really do want some action on it.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member care to comment on the fact that in clause 12, actual fraudsters are given the option to either have a court agree, or for them to agree to repay the amount?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert— “(a) the liable person agrees, or (b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.” This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and appropriate.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, to schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99. This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order . My amendment 8 is related to our debate about direct deduction orders and safeguards for people with social security debts. The amendment would remove the requirement for banks to routinely provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order. It is important to note that before the Secretary of State can make a direct deduction order, they must submit an account information notice to the bank with which the debtor has an account requesting copies of the debtor’s bank statements covering a period of at least three months prior to the notice being issued. I understand that the disclosure’s intended purpose is for the Secretary of State to consider whether the debtor can afford to have the funds deducted, but the schedule states that the bank must not inform the debtor or joint account holders if it receives an AIN. I am concerned that powers to request granular information from banks about their customers, without the customers’ knowledge, to decide whether an individual can afford to pay back an overpayment are intrusive and potentially authoritarian. Bank statements can reveal sensitive and private information about an individual’s movements, associations, political opinions, religious beliefs, sex life, sexual orientation and trade union membership. Since an AIN can also apply to joint accounts, individuals who are not themselves benefit recipients can have their private financial information disclosed to the DWP in a similar way. The powers will affect individuals who have been overpaid because of mistakes and oversights. The Secretary of State should not be able to covertly demand a person’s financial records without suspicion that the person has committed any criminal offence. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider amendment 8. It would remove the powers that require banks to hand over bank statements and account information, and thus it would prevent direct deduction orders being issued on the basis of covert financial surveillance. As with amendment 7, I hope we will come back to the issues raised by amendment 8 at a later stage, and that we will see some changes in this area.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we have been discussing, schedule 6 and clause 91 make provision that, where all other methods of debt recovery have failed, including the direct deduction order measures we have been discussing, the DWP may apply to a court to have the debtor disqualified from driving. Like the hon. Member for Horsham, I have real concerns about these new powers. I cannot see how this specific novel civil penalty of removing a driving licence is at all appropriate to the particular group of people we are discussing, nor do I see the equivalence to the people being enforced upon by HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which have similar powers. Legitimate benefit claimants who are overpaid through error, make a mistake or for any other reason owe money to the DWP are, almost by definition, in need of help. They might often make mistakes or fail to disclose information through an oversight, and their failure to engage with the DWP to date might be due to genuine incapacity and health issues. I am therefore very concerned that there are ineffective safeguards in the court process for these powers. Although the DWP must apply to the court for the disqualification order, the court does not have discretion to refuse unless the debtor needs a driving licence to earn a living or has another essential need for one. It is unclear the extent to which this will protect vulnerable benefit claimants who have not engaged with the DWP due to incapacity, illness or mental ill health, or for whom driving is not essential for their work, but may be essential for their wellbeing or family life. I am not sure that the proposed legislation is clear enough about what will be deemed essential or what will be reasonable for the court to object to. I also have concerns, as outlined a moment ago, that these powers cannot be exercised unless the people concerned have tried every other method, from benefit deductions or deductions from earnings to the direct deductions from bank accounts—the measure we have just discussed, which is extraordinarily intrusive on people’s financial information and privacy. Given that these powers would only be used where it appears that those other powers cannot be, is it not true that they are basically only for when a debtor cannot physically pay back what they owe? In effect, this measure of removing the driving licence is a punishment. It is a poverty penalty for those who do not have the means, despite all the intrusion that Ministers have gone through to establish that, to return what they have been overpaid. I cannot support this power. It is incredibly punitive. I do not think it will create the conditions in which debtors are encouraged to engage with the DWP, but it could create dire consequences for individuals who are already struggling and least able to afford repayments.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 90 Recovery from bank accounts etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Radio 4’s “Today” programme last week, Matthew Ryder KC, who sits as a judge, praised the extreme helpfulness of pre-sentencing reports for passing effective sentences. Will the Secretary of State do as he asks and endorse the importance, value and independence of the Sentencing Council?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I want to raise the comments made by the Information Commissioner in relation to the Bill and the updates to the previous Government’s proposals. I understood that they were more content with this Bill than the previous Bill. They were pleased that it brought data protection more tightly within the measures, and that it talked about data protection in a much more consistent way with the law. They said that the Bill more tightly scopes the types of information that can and cannot be shared. I understand that our debate on clause 85 covered some of those improvements. However, at the end of their comments, the Information Commissioner talked about the review process, and said very clearly that they would like to explore with the Government the role that the Information Commissioner’s Office can play in assisting with the review process. This clause does not set out the different offices and people with whom the independent reviewer needs to liaise in preparing their report. I wondered whether Ministers could comment on their thoughts surrounding that process, and consider setting out in the code of practice or further guidance how the independent reviewer might engage properly with data protection in their review.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak against clause 74 and schedule 3, and to support my amendment 35, which I intend to push to a vote. I also support the two Liberal Democrat amendments, and will vote for those if they are pressed. In short, I am opposed to clause 74 and schedule 3 standing part of the Bill, and to the related powers that apply to the eligibility verification process. These powers do nothing less than bring in a system of disproportionate, mass financial surveillance of millions of people who have done nothing wrong and are not suspected of any wrongdoing. It is of profound concern that these powers are likely to be used at scale to monitor the private bank accounts of people who need the support of society and have done absolutely nothing to arouse suspicion. One of the changes that people wanted to see when they voted out the last Government was a welfare system that treats people with dignity and respect. Sadly and disappointingly, these parts of the Bill are based instead on blame and suspicion of people in need of help, when the bigger issue is unclaimed and underclaimed benefits due to a lack of awareness, complexity in the system and stigma. I asked the Minister in the evidence session whether he would be using these new powers to also help alert people who are underclaiming benefits to what they may be due. The answer was not very clear, but I think it was no, because only the possibility of overpayments and reclaiming those was discussed. I do not want to tweak these proposals—I want to prevent these two parts of the Bill becoming law at all, because they would allow the DWP to require banks and other financial institutions to provide information about claimants of universal credit, pension credit and employment support allowance in order to interrogate their claims of eligibility and entitlement. I assume that every claim would be examined over time. That means a huge new invasion of citizens’ privacy. Currently, if someone is out on the street, the police can only use suspicion-less stop and search on them if they have a section 60 notice in place, which involves setting out a clear reason, identifying a small area and identifying a fixed time for which that would take place. The Bill effectively puts a section 60 notice around every single person who claims these benefits. These people include, disproportionately, people from protected groups—disabled people and older people. This is a real problem; it is discriminatory, unsettling and unfair. On the numbers, around 7 million people receive universal credit, around 1.4 million pensioners receive pension credit, and around 1.5 million get help from employment support allowance. These powers will drag nearly 10 million people directly into a net of intrusive financial surveillance, as well as those appointed to receive benefits on their behalf, including parents, carers, appointed people and landlords. Given that several of these benefits have eligibility requirements based on household income, we are bringing in family members as well. Unsurprisingly, these measures are of huge concern to disability rights, poverty, pension and privacy groups, who are united in their opposition to them. Ideally, I want to see everything struck out, but amendment 35 to schedule 3 would at least mean that more benefits could not be added to the list of relevant benefits by regulations. It would leave in place the ability for Ministers to remove benefits through regulations in future. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, set out on Second Reading the risk of damaging trust in and engagement with the DWP for millions of people who might otherwise not claim benefits. I raise that problem because I believe that underclaiming is as much of a problem as fraud and error and should be getting as much attention. On proportionality, it is incumbent on Ministers to come up with a new, more proportionate way to address fraud, where there is reasonable suspicion. I am not against the issue being looked at, but I add that administrative errors are 8% of the problem. They are caused by the DWP’s mistakes and should not result in a need to treat as suspects people who might make errors in their claims due to lack of clarity in or awareness of requirements. It is absolutely right that fraudulent uses of public money are dealt with robustly. To that end, the Government already have significant powers to review the bank statements of welfare fraud suspects. Ministers did not hear me complaining at the new powers to require more information when there is a reasonable suspicion of somebody having committed fraud. This eligibility requirement goes way, way beyond. There are automated decision-making powers coming through in another Bill, which impacts on this Bill and the assurances we have received from Ministers. They say that no automated decisions will be made based on the eligibility verification data alone and that, where potential fraud is identified against those eligibility indicators, cases will be referred to the DWP for further consideration and investigation. However, assurances by the DWP that a human will always be involved in the decision whether to investigate an individual are not set out in the legislation, and the scale and nature of any human input is very unclear, despite its having been promised. Furthermore, as we heard in oral evidence, while assurances about human involvement are also provided for under current data protection law, the Data (Use and Access) Bill currently making its way through Parliament will remove any proper prohibitions on automated decision making. Those must be included in this legislation, in the code of practice or in the regulations. I believe it is for the Government to produce urgent amendments to solve the problem.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will press mine too.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister will not take this the wrong way, but I hope that he is able to understand that the stigma that people feel about applying for benefits is partly to do with the attitudes people have towards those who receive benefits. The idea of the Government applying a privacy invasion measure against that cohort of people as a whole feels like discrimination to them. It adds to the stigma; it speaks to the fact that they feel that they are not treated as well as other people in society. They are not believed when they say that they do not have £16,000. Those are all parts of the same package of discrimination, are they not?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member recall me talking about clause 72 and not speaking up about speeding up the electronic getting of information from banks when people are under suspicion? Does he agree that there is a barrier at that point?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In general, I very much support the move to make the PSFA an independent body, and the constitution in schedule 2 seems like a good start. However, looking through it I cannot see anywhere how the people appointed as the chair and executive of the PSFA will be subject to a code of conduct; to rules on transparency and registering interests; to requirements relating to compliance with the Nolan principles; and to the oversight of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments relating to subsequent work after they leave the PSFA. The Minister, who is currently named in the Bill, is subject to all those requirements. There is clear potential for conflicts of interests in the various roles, so it is important that they are put under that regime. Will the Minister be clear about how that will come about and whether that could be added to the constitution if it is not already there?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. I want to reiterate the points made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. It is not good enough to be able to refer only to the official record of the long list that the Minister just read out of what is likely to appear in the code of practice. At this stage of the legislation, we ought to be scrutinising at least a draft. The clause does not include any consultation on a draft code of practice and there are no scrutiny safeguards built into the legislation, so it is wrong to not be looking at the details. In previous debates, I have set out my concerns that although there have been reassurances that this part of the Bill is about major fraud, and that it excludes the Department for Work and Pensions, it is easy to envisage that there may be a scheme of fraud against other Departments that involves defrauding grants that are available to support people claiming certain benefits. That might bring people who are poorer and more vulnerable into a scheme where, according to previous clauses, these penalties may be applied. We need to look at the code of practice in draft form at this stage of the legislation or as soon as possible.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I do not support the Conservative amendment. A lot of the discussion in Committee has been about reducing the risk of harm to potentially vulnerable people and people caught up in these frauds, who might not deserve to be punished in any way. I would not support taking out a measure that is there presumably to reduce the consequences of making an error. Therefore, I will not support the amendment.