debates/debates2025-02-03e conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-02-03)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-02-03e conversation_21

Lee Pitcher:What assessment has the Minister made of recent trends in the level of fraud in the welfare system, because every £1 lost to fraud is £1 that should have gone to our schools, to our hospitals or on the future of our residents? \p Andrew Western: 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. \p Tim Farron: Hundreds of farmers and other small business owners in Westmorland who earn less than the minimum wage are not eligible for universal credit because of the failure of that system to take account of variability of income. Will the Minister look to put that right so that we can support the people who support us? \p Stephen Timms: We are committed in our manifesto to a review of universal credit and I expect to set out shortly the details of how that review will go forward. I will be very happy to look at the particular case the hon. Gentleman raises in the course of the review. \p Darren Paffey: We all know that the best route out of poverty is through well-paid work, but for families in my constituency, where a third of children grow up in poverty, low-paid and insecure jobs are a massive barrier. What will the Department do to help more families back into work and to alleviate poverty for children growing up in Southampton Itchen? \p Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend eloquently makes the case for our “Make Work Pay” reforms. This is not just about helping our economy grow, it is also about protecting people from poverty. In all we do to change jobcentres, we want to support people into good, sustainable, well-paid work because that is the best way out of poverty. \p Sarah Olney: A constituent came to see me last week who had not eaten for four days. Her state pension had increased in line with the triple lock but this took her over the threshold for pension credit, which then took away her entitlement to a range of other benefits including the winter fuel allowance. What are the Government doing to ensure people do not experience such a significant cliff edge? \p Torsten Bell: I thank the hon. Member for raising that case and I would be happy to meet her to go into a bit more detail. That is exactly why we make sure the pension credit threshold rises in line with the basic state pension through the triple lock. \p Damien Egan: During covid, assessments for personal independence payments were moved either online or to over the phone. Today less than 5% of those assessments have returned to face-to-face, so what assessment have Ministers made of that change and are there any links with the rise in fraud? \p Andrew Western: 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. \p Luke Taylor: Marie Curie research has found that 15% of the three quarters of a million end-of-life carers are living below the poverty line, rising to 22% a year after bereavement. Given these statistics, will the Minister consider extending the time that carers can claim carer’s allowance from two months to six months after bereavement? \p Stephen Timms: We keep these matters under review. I have not looked at that particular proposal before, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line I will certainly give it a careful look. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Final question, Dame Meg Hillier. \p Meg Hillier: I applaud the Front-Bench team for its energy in driving the child poverty taskforce, but every decision has consequences and costs. Will the Minister outline the costs of some of the processes she is looking at changing, particularly the cost of lifting the two-child cap, and if she does not have the figure to hand will she write to me? \p Alison McGovern: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee for all her work on this issue. I will happily engage with her through correspondence on the matter. \p Alan Mak: (Urgent Question):To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if he will make a statement on AstraZeneca. \p Chris Bryant: As the largest company listed on the London Stock Exchange, employing more than 10,000 people and investing about £2.5 billion every year in the UK, AstraZeneca is a close and valued partner to this Government and is critical to the UK’s thriving life sciences sector. We saw that in the covid-19 pandemic, when AstraZeneca partnered with the University of Oxford to create a safe and effective vaccine that was manufactured and distributed around the world, saving millions of lives.

This type of partnership for the prevention of illness is critical to achieving the Government’s ambition of reducing the burden on the NHS. AstraZeneca’s decision not to invest in Speke, Liverpool is therefore deeply disappointing and follows intensive work and collaboration between the Government and the company. This collaboration on Speke dates back to 2020 and led to an announcement at the spring Budget 2024 when AstraZeneca set out its intention to invest £450 million into its flu vaccine manufacturing facility. To secure that investment, the previous Chancellor provided assurance of His Majesty’s Government support, valued at around £90 million, subject to successful completion of due diligence. That support was based on His Majesty’s Government’s initial assessment of figures provided by the company.

Both the previous Government and this Government have always made clear that full due diligence would be required before a final Government offer could be confirmed. Since the spring Budget, AstraZeneca confirmed a significant change in the composition of its proposed investment, resulting in a smaller level of research and development being conducted in the UK. As the shadow Minister would expect, that change in AstraZeneca’s UK investment resulted in a corresponding change in Government support.

Our revised Government offer sought to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and followed due diligence of the investment put forward by AstraZeneca. We remain closely engaged with AstraZeneca as we develop our new industrial strategy, build a health system fit for the future and drive up economic growth. In the spring, the Government will release our industrial strategy, containing a comprehensive plan for growing the life sciences sector. That will build on the significant momentum generated by the plan for growth, including delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, as well as the Budget announcement of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, the suite of inward investment announced at the international investment summit and the strategic partnerships announced with Oxford Nanopore and Eli Lilly. \p Alan Mak: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Just five days ago, in another speech about growth designed to divert attention from the total lack of growth caused by Labour’s high taxes and anti-business approach, the Chancellor specifically praised AstraZeneca:  she knew that the last Conservative Government had successfully negotiated a deal for Britain’s biggest public company to invest £450 million into Britain’s economy.

Under the Conservative deal, AstraZeneca would have expanded its flu vaccine factory on Merseyside, creating new jobs, improving the UK’s pandemic preparedness and sending a clear message to the world that Britain’s life sciences sector is open for business. Instead, Labour has cut the funding that we agreed and has imposed a national insurance jobs tax. That has destroyed the business case for expanding the factory and the deal is now off. Will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology failed to stand up to the Chancellor when she cut his funding, destroying the deal and handing high-quality jobs and investment to our competitors?

In the past 12 months, AstraZeneca has committed to investing more than £1 billion in Singapore, nearly £3 billion in the US and more than £450 million in Canada. It could have invested £450 million in our country, too, so what are the Government doing to bring back the jobs and investment that they have just turned away?

By last July, all that was required was for Labour to confirm that it would proceed with our deal. AstraZeneca wrote to the Chancellor and the Science Secretary on 9 July, but received no reply. It wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in early July too, but he fobbed it off. The company did not receive its answer until last October. By then, it was too late to deliver the project and now the deal is dead. Will the Minister and the Science Secretary write to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), offering to appear before her Committee to explain what went wrong and how such failures can be avoided in the future?

Delivering this deal secured by the Conservatives was a big test of Labour’s economic credibility, and it has failed. In the same week that it talked about growth, it has botched a deal that was vital to our economy. Labour promised growth, but delivered failure and let Britain down again. \p Chris Bryant: What utter nonsense. We endured 14 years of growth that even the shadow Minister’s own Back Benchers used to describe as anaemic and feeble. Average growth under Tory Governments is 1.2%; average growth under Labour Governments is 2.4%. We are far more likely to secure growth in the British economy under a Labour Government.

The shadow Minister simply did not listen to what I had to say. The Conservatives sat on this so-called deal with AstraZeneca for four years. The process started in 2020, and it is interesting what was announced to the House and what was actually announced in the paperwork. In the House, the then Chancellor said that AstraZeneca had announced plans to invest to

“fund the building of a vaccine manufacturing hub in Speke in Liverpool.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 845.]

He did not make any mention in the Chamber of the money that was needed from his Department to be able to pay for it. The paperwork that attended that announcement stated:

“AstraZeneca’s investment decision is contingent upon mutual agreement with the UK Government and third parties, and successful completion of regulatory processes.”

That was absolutely typical of the previous Government: they thought that when they had announced something it had come to pass, but due diligence is needed to ensure the best possible financial advantage for the British taxpayer.

We have seen clearly that AstraZeneca’s original intention last year was to deliver £150 million-worth of R&D, but then it decided to cut that to something like £90 million-worth. That was its decision, based on its own investment decisions, and we as a Government had to assess whether £90 million from the UK—as supposedly promised by the previous Chancellor—was the right amount of money to put into the pot, or whether it was better to offer slightly less. Unfortunately, at the end of that process AstraZeneca decided that it would not proceed.

Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member that this is the best country in the world in which to invest in the private sector. Some £63 billion of investment was secured at the growth summit last year, and £14 billion—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), keeps pushing it a little bit. I think we should hear no more of that. \p Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And £14 billion was secured following the announcement of our artificial intelligence opportunities plan. We have cut the rate of corporation tax to 25%, which is the lowest in the G7. We are creating a pension mega-fund to be able to invest further. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ last CEO survey, we are, for the first time ever, the second-best place in the world to invest in the Government, and that is because we have a Labour Government, not a Conservative reject. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. \p Chi Onwurah: The UK Government are committed to growing the economy through increased R&D and advanced manufacturing. AstraZeneca tell us that it is committed to investing in the UK, which is where it is headquartered and where one of its largest customers—the NHS—is based. It is like hearing that two people are madly in love with each other, yet the wedding is off. I look forward to the Minister of State for Science explaining the background to this to the Select Committee when he appears before us next week.

In the meantime, will the Minister confirm that the UK is committed to incentivising R&D investment? Will he set out the mix of R&D and manufacturing investment agreed to by AstraZeneca under the last Government, and to which it was committed when it dropped the deal? Finally, the deal, as well as growing the economy, would have made our pandemic supply chain more resilient by reducing our dependence on mRNA vaccines. Will he set out how he intends to address that? \p Chris Bryant: It is good to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee. I want to make it absolutely clear that AstraZeneca is not leaving—people are not losing their jobs because of this decision. There are still 10,000 people employed by AstraZeneca in the UK and, for  that matter, it is proceeding with its nasal-based flu vaccine for children, just in a different way. All of that is important.

My hon. Friend asked about the precise details of the R&D mix that was part of the investment. As I said, it was to have been £150 million of investment. AstraZeneca decided to cut that to £90 million, which is why the contribution that the previous Chancellor had suggested of £90 million into that pot simply did not add up for the UK taxpayer, which is why we came to that set of decisions. However, she is absolutely right that we are fundamentally committed to the life sciences sector for the saving of life, for making sure that we have an NHS that can really deliver for people, and because we want to have valuable jobs that we do better in this country than anywhere else in the world. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Victoria Collins: This news makes for yet another disappointing day for the UK’s investment landscape. We could be a global leader in innovation, but ever since the previous Conservative Government’s scrapping of the industrial strategy businesses have been left with uncertainty. The life sciences sector is vital not just for economic growth, but for our health and technological innovation. It contributes over £43 billion to the UK economy, supports thousands of highly skilled jobs and drives breakthroughs in medicine and healthcare, yet in conversations that I have had with businesses, I have heard time and again how the UK’s fragmented approach to investment is holding them back. That is why I have highlighted those concerns in previous questions to the Secretary of State.

The Government have promised to publish “Invest 2035” this spring, but right now companies still have no detail on what support will be available and when. Without urgent action, we risk more world-leading firms following AstraZeneca’s lead and taking their investments elsewhere. Will the Minister please confirm exactly when the final Invest 2035 strategy will be published? The Government said that the decision was based on value for money, so will the Minister and the Secretary of State also publish the impact assessment, so that we can see for ourselves? \p Chris Bryant: I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that last question, as I am not sure precisely where we are with an impact assessment. She is absolutely right that the UK’s life sciences sector generated something like £108 billion in turnover in the financial year ending 2022—a sharp 13% increase on the previous year. We want to build on that. The sector has seen year-on-year growth since the financial year ending 2015, and turnover is now 40% higher than in the financial year ending 2022. We are keen to publish, as part of our industrial strategy, our precise plans for the financial services sector. We said that will be in the spring—it certainly still felt like winter in the Rhondda at the weekend, so I am afraid she will have to wait until spring has sprung. \p Bill Esterson: AstraZeneca is a key partner in the Liverpool city region’s life sciences innovation zone, as is Maghull health park in my constituency, with its research and development plans. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will engage with partners in the city region, including the University of Liverpool, the metro mayor Steve Rotheram,  council leaders and the region’s MPs, to try to recover ground on this deal, which will add to the success we have already seen with AstraZeneca in the city region and across the country? \p Chris Bryant: Regional mayors have an important role to play in helping bring investment into key areas. I am happy to ensure that the meetings that my hon. Friend has asked for take place. This has to be a joint venture between everyone. I want to underline that it is not the case that AstraZeneca is leaving the United Kingdom, or that it does not have confidence in the United Kingdom, because it clearly does—it invests more than £2.5 billion every year into the UK economy. It is a key partner of the UK and will continue to be so. \p Kit Malthouse: What a shame the Minister has chosen to substitute aggression for what should be regret for what is, whichever way he paints it, obviously a terrible failure of negotiation. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences, and I can tell the House that this is a terrible blow not just for Speke and Liverpool—the city of my birth—but for our vaccination development environment generally. The lack of this production facility means that there will be no pull for vaccination development in the UK and the various technologies that come with it. What will he do to replace that? \p Chris Bryant: Of course we feel regretful. We would have preferred to get this over the line but that was not possible, in large measure because AstraZeneca decided that it did not add up in whatever particular way for it. The right hon. Gentleman makes one very good point: we want a manufacturing provision in the country, and my colleague Lord Vallance is working on that very closely with the sector. \p Paula Barker: Friday’s announcement was deeply disappointing. The Liverpool city region is home to one of Europe’s largest pharma clusters. The Government were prepared to put millions into the project with AstraZeneca, which it has now walked away from. Is that money still on the table for other viable life science projects in our region? Will the Government commit to meet our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram, to discuss that further? \p Chris Bryant: That is the cleverest bid for finance that I have ever heard, so my hon. Friend gets an award for that. She is right that we stand ready at any point to assist key investments of this nature, especially in the life sciences sector. The difference between the amount of money that was theoretically made available by the previous Government and the amount that we were prepared to put forward was remarkably small. The issue is how to ensure that similar investments get over the line. Someone from the Department will meet Steve Rotheram. \p Esther McVey: How does losing £450 million of investment on Merseyside and into the wider north-west area equate with the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth? \p Chris Bryant: The right hon. Lady puts it in a particular way, but it is not a way that is consonant with the facts. The fact is that this deal had not been signed or got over  the line by the previous Government, who, as I have said, would quite often announce things and not actually deliver in the end. In spring 2024, the then Chancellor made it very clear in the documents that accompanied the Budget that all of this was contingent—his words, not mine—on due diligence. The then Government had not yet done the due diligence. \p Tim Roca: More than 5,000 people are employed at AstraZeneca’s Macclesfield campus, producing world-class medicines and contributing £1.8 billion in GVA and 1% of total UK exports. AstraZeneca has confirmed to me that the Speke decision does not impact Macclesfield, a site that it is committed to. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to working with AZ so it continues to have a bright future in Macclesfield? \p Chris Bryant: Yes, 100%. I know that my hon. Friend has visited AstraZeneca and spoken to it many times. He is absolutely right to note that there are, I think, 4,000 working at the Macclesfield site, and will continue to do so. I am sure that AstraZeneca has a very strong future in Macclesfield. Nothing in this decision changes that one iota. \p Julian Smith: We in this House often underestimate how many options companies such as AstraZeneca have on where to invest. The Minister is not known for taking no as an answer, so can I urge him to continue to make the case for this investment, be flexible on VFM and keep fighting for this specific deal? \p Chris Bryant: Not necessarily for this specific deal, but certainly for a deal with AstraZeneca, yes. \p Anneliese Midgley: AstraZeneca’s decision to pull its £450 million investment in the Speke manufacturing plant is a blow for the creation of jobs across the city region, including in my constituency. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her tireless efforts in trying to get this deal over the line. Will the Minister join me in recognising the brilliant work of the scientists at the facility, and will he meet me and colleagues to explain how he can guarantee investment in R&D in the city region going forward? \p Chris Bryant: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend knows, as she knows, although I think it would probably be more useful for her if she were to meet Lord Vallance, who is the Minister for life sciences. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we would of course much prefer this investment to go ahead and to have been able to get this deal over the line. However, it has not been possible, and we now have to look at different ways of ensuring that we strengthen the relationship with AstraZeneca. However, I would point to other investments that have been made in recent months, including in life sciences, to quite significant effect. \p Alison Bennett: The Financial Times reports that, during its negotiations with the Government, AstraZeneca raised concerns about the vaccine plant, but also about the rejection of one of its breast cancer drugs and the drug pricing mechanism. Does the Minister agree that AstraZeneca’s rejection of his Government’s final offer is not the only concerning  issue for our biopharma industry, and will he assure me that he is raising issues around the regulatory and reimbursement processes with the Health Secretary and the Treasury as barriers to growth in a sector already struggling with post-Brexit red tape? \p Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady’s first point was on the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, which is reduced to an acronym that is not really an acronym: VPAG. This is, as it says on the tin, a voluntary agreement between Government, the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS, which is designed specifically to ensure that we protect the NHS’s medicines budget. It is voluntary, and AstraZeneca has always been a party to it on a voluntary basis. I am not sure that is the problem the hon. Lady thinks it is—although, if she has further evidence, I would be happy to speak to her.

I think she is also referring to the rejection by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of a breast cancer drug. This is the first time in six years that a breast cancer drug has been rejected by NICE, and it is obviously concerning for everybody who wants to be able to use these drugs. However, we have an independent and much-respected system in the UK. I stand by that independence; I am not going to undermine it. \p Graham Stringer: May I say in the gentlest possible way to my hon. Friend the Minister that losing investment in Merseyside and the north-west is not compensated for by investment in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, particularly as some years ago we lost Diamond Light Source from Daresbury? I would also like to ask him a question on a deeper issue beyond the normal party political dance: it’s their fault. it’s not, or whatever. When Kate Bingham, the heroine of covid and developing vaccines, finished she made excoriating comments about our civil servants and their ability to understand science and biological sciences. What is the Minister doing to improve that situation, so that distinguished people like Kate Bingham do not say that officials in the civil service treat this huge industry with suspicion and contempt? \p Chris Bryant: If I might just refer to the first comment first, I am the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore, so I fully understand that investment in one part of the country is obviously great for that part of the country, but it does not necessarily mean that every part of the country is rising with everybody else. Trying to make sure that economic investment spreads across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in the north-west, the north-east and in the south Wales valleys, is a really important part of our historic mission.

On my hon. Friend’s other point, AstraZeneca complained about the length of time all of this has taken. As I say, it started in 2020 and it was only in 2024 that the first announcement was made—as I understand it, by a text message from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the chief executive of AstraZeneca. We might need to learn better ways of informing our decisions about science. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Did the Government’s rise in national insurance contributions and the over £400,000 a year extra that AstraZeneca would have needed to pay for the site contribute to its decision to withdraw? \p Chris Bryant: No. \p Johanna Baxter: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. More than 1.2 million clinically vulnerable people are still shielding from covid because their mRNA vaccine does not provide efficient protection for immunosuppressed people. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Department is putting the UK at the forefront of international R&D in life sciences to support those very vulnerable people? \p Chris Bryant: Not only have we set aside £520 million precisely to be able to invest in the life sciences industry with an innovation fund, we are very keen to work with specific businesses to understand how they can make more secure, long-term investment. The single most important thing for most people making an investment in the UK is whether they believe there is political, fiscal and financial stability in the UK. That is what we are absolutely determined to deliver. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about those who are immunosuppressed for all sorts of different reasons, whether their medication or a condition. I will take that point back to the Department. \p Kirsty Blackman: The Chancellor said that economic growth is the most important thing and this was an opportunity to get some of that economic growth. This was an opportunity to get something over the line and the UK Government failed to deliver it. How can the House and the public trust anything the UK Government say? How can they say that this is the founding mission if they then fail to deliver for a region that could really do with that economic growth? \p Chris Bryant: The thing is that spending taxpayers’ money has to be proven to be good value for money. That is why, whenever we are making an investment such as this, we have to make sure it delivers more return on investment than £1 for £1. When AstraZeneca made the decision to cut the R&D part of its budget from £150 million to £90 million, it made sense for the UK Government to look again at the amount of money we could legitimately put in on behalf of the taxpayer. If the hon. Lady had been in my place, I think she would have made exactly the same decision. \p Christopher Vince: Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s announcement last week of investment in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor shows very clearly that the Government see a bright future for life sciences in the United Kingdom, and will he forgive me for giving a brief plug to a post-war new town—my constituency of Harlow—which would very much like to be part of that future? \p Chris Bryant: There are all sorts of bids coming in now, none of which I am in charge of, but we have seen significant added investments in the UK since the autumn. For instance, Iberdrola is doubling its investment through Scottish Power from £12 billion to £24 billion over the next four years, and Blackstone has confirmed a £10 billion investment in Blyth in Northumberland. What is essential, however, is for us to ensure that that investment stretches across the UK, that we have the skills we need in order to deliver those investments, and that we have the economic structures in place to enable them to remain,  because they are long-term investments, not just short-term ones. Also, sometimes, we have to tackle the over-regulation that exists in some elements of the economy, particularly in relation to planning, so that we can get down to making the decisions that the Tories should have made for 14 years. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: The chief scientific officer has previously stated the importance of this investment in the UK’s pandemic preparedness. In the light of the announcement, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the UK’s ability to respond to future pandemics? \p Chris Bryant: It is not entirely dependent on our AstraZeneca programme, and indeed, as I have already pointed out, the piece of work in which it was intending to invest—I hope I will get the science right—was changing the way in which it would create the nasal flu vaccine for children from an egg-based to a cell-based system. It has now decided not to do that, but to stick to the egg-based system. I think that if the chief scientific adviser or the chief medical officer has anything on which to update the House, he and/or she will do so.[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 6WC.] (Correction) \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Despite AstraZeneca’s decision, the UK biotech industry almost doubled last year to £3.4 billion, but it was concentrated in just a few companies. Will the Minister commit to looking at some of the trial research rules to enable smaller companies to work better with NHS trusts so that start-ups and local firms can prosper? \p Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is right: not only do we need to enable smaller companies to start up, but we need to enable them to grow to scale. Otherwise, the danger is that we develop the good idea, someone else ends up buying the intellectual property, and all the value disappears out the UK’s back door. When I met the husband-and-wife team who run BioNtech—they are amazing, not least in respect of some of the work they have done in developing immunotherapy, which is probably the stuff that saved my life when I had stage 4 cancer—they spoke warmly and glowingly about all the work that they want to do in the UK, alongside the work of AstraZeneca. As my hon. Friend says, we need to get small companies set up, to grow them, and to enable them to be world leaders like AstraZeneca. \p Sammy Wilson: Investment in highly paid industries producing good-quality research and development, and the spin-offs from that, are, of course, important to the economy and to long-term growth. I agree with the Minister that when it comes to using public money we have to be careful about how it is spent, and not just throw it at a company because it has threatened to walk away from investment. In fact, I should have thought that those on the Opposition Front Bench would be quite happy to hear the Minister talking about the proper use of public finance like a prudent Conservative Minister. My question, however, is this. Although due diligence had to be done, and it may well have been assessed that this was not a good use of public money, was the investment lost because of a lack of communication between the Government and the company during the assessment process, when perhaps the company could have been convinced that it could proceed, even with less support? \p Chris Bryant: I will take support from wherever I can get it, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very simple point that when the Government invest in businesses of whatever kind, we have to make sure that we get value for money for the taxpayer, even when there is a very large cheque on the table. AstraZeneca decided to change the structure of its research and development, which is one of the reasons why we had to change the amount of money that we were prepared to put in, but the right hon. Gentleman’s other points are very good and well made. \p Chris Curtis: Alongside other Members representing Milton Keynes, I attended the Chancellor’s speech last Wednesday and spoke to many companies, including those from the life sciences sector. There were two really important points that they wanted to make, after being reasonably pleased with what they heard from the Chancellor. The first was about the importance of talking up our world-leading universities, after the previous Government continually talked them down. Will the Minister commit that this Government will continue to sell our world-leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, on the world stage?

The second point that companies wanted to make was that investing in life sciences right across the country requires a successful Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister commit to doing whatever it takes to make the entire corridor successful, including by getting a devolution deal for the midlands and speaking to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that happens? \p Chris Bryant: Yes, and I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. The Oxford-Cambridge corridor is really important. Reading the newspapers over the weekend, I was intrigued by how many Conservative commentators kept on saying, “What I don’t understand is why the Conservatives didn’t do this over the last 14 years.” It is not enough simply to build the Oxford-Cambridge corridor; we need to make sure that we build on creative and scientific innovations at all our universities in the United Kingdom, and not just at Oxford and Cambridge. \p Lewis Cocking: We received terrible news from AstraZeneca over the weekend. It is businesses across the country, such as those in my constituency of Broxbourne, that create economic growth, not the Government. The Government have increased red tape and employer’s national insurance contributions. Can the Minister outline how he is promoting businesses and encouraging them to invest in the United Kingdom? \p Chris Bryant: As I have already said, we had £63 billion of investment at the summit before Christmas, and we have had £14 billion of investment since Christmas. I have a specific responsibility for data in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the number of data centres investing in the UK is significant. We now have 500, which puts us third after the United States of America and Germany. We are determined to grow the economy. The hon. Gentleman is sort of right to say that it is the private sector that creates growth, but it is also true to say that the Government contribute to growth. For instance, if we manage to build 1.5 million additional homes in the UK, that will contribute to growth. If the Conservatives do not believe that, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. \p Kevin Bonavia: The wider context of the issue before us today is that this country is at the forefront of the global life sciences sector, of which there are clusters across the UK. In my constituency of Stevenage, which was the first post-war new town in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, we have GlaxoSmithKline, Autolus, and the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how this Government are committed to spreading growth in the life sciences sector across the whole country, and thank all our hard-working scientists? \p Chris Bryant: That is precisely the job that Lord Vallance is engaged in. We are trying to make sure that our research and development budget across the whole of the UK is spent in a way that delivers economic growth and investment in companies that are start-ups, but also in ones that need to scale up. We are also working with the Department for Education to make sure that we have the skills that we need in the UK—not just to come up with a good scientific idea, but to develop entrepreneurialism and to be able to take an idea to market and make a living out of it. \p Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for providing some insight into the way in which the Government and their Ministers look on economic matters. Does he appreciate that investment per capita in R&D is very much greater in America than in this country? There are now a range of incentives at federal and state level that will act as a draw to life sciences, notwithstanding what has happened in Washington over the past few days. What is there to tie a company such as AstraZeneca to this country? Why would it not look more favourably on America as a destination of choice? \p Chris Bryant: To be honest, that sounded like a bid to send AstraZeneca to the United States of America. I do not think that is what hon. Members of this House should be doing; I think they should be standing up for the UK as the best place for AstraZeneca to invest. [Interruption.] There is no point in pointing at me like a child: that does nobody any favours. The honest truth is that AstraZeneca is and will remain one of the biggest investors in the UK economy. \p Wendy Morton: No matter how the Minister tries to dress it up, this is a blow to the UK economy, to life sciences and to manufacturing. What message about the Government’s lack of support for manufacturing does this decision send to global investors and, importantly, to the local jobs market? \p Chris Bryant: It does not send any kind of message like that. The point is that in the UK we have secured dramatic amounts of additional investment since the general election. What is interesting is that all the Conservative Members are praising something that was never delivered by the previous Government; it was only announced. It is like so many parts of the DSIT budget that I discovered when I became a Minister. Theoretically, the previous Government had said that they were doing this, that and the other, but they had not actually set aside a single penny, because they had not done a proper comprehensive spending review for many, many years. That is precisely the black hole that we have had to fill. \p Joshua Reynolds: Given the protectionist policies of US President Trump, can the Minister confirm how he will seize the opportunity to make the UK the best place for pharmaceutical investment in the world? \p Chris Bryant: Some of what I have already pointed out is really important. We have already said that we will have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, at 25%, and we are sticking with that. We have made sure that we are investing in our public services so that people can have a guarantee of proper public services in this country. One thing that affects many businesses in this country—I have heard it repeatedly—is that if we have 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, we will not get people back into work. I would argue that the public sector and the private sector both have a role to play in enabling each other to flourish. It is not a question of “private sector good, public sector bad,” or the other way around; the two have to work hand in hand. \p Christopher Chope: For all the virtues of AstraZeneca, let us not forget that thousands of people suffered serious injury or death as a result of having the AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccines. Why, then, are the Government continuing to waste taxpayers’ money on indemnifying AstraZeneca against claims for civil liability brought by those victims of AstraZeneca vaccines? \p Chris Bryant: I think the hon. Gentleman needs to speak to the hon. Member who spoke earlier—oh, he’s left. I actually believe that the vaccines saved lives; I do not believe that they lost people their lives. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will never be united on that front. \p David Reed: A pattern is forming around this not so new Government’s ability to negotiate effectively, from their disastrous approach to Chagos to the terrible deal with train unions and this latest debacle with AstraZeneca. Is it fair to say that when this Labour Government negotiate, Britain loses out? \p Chris Bryant: It is almost sad, sometimes. I just wish the hon. Member had been here for the last 14 years. I wish he had been here when we had endless strikes in every single part of every Department and we could not get the NHS waiting lists dealt with because we were not paying our nurses and our doctors properly. The first thing that we did was a deal to get them back to work. The hon. Member thinks that somehow or other that is buying off the trade unions. It is not. It is making sure that the people who work in our public services are properly rewarded, get back to work and get this country back on its feet. \p Tom Gordon: The Minister said that the numbers no longer added up for AstraZeneca, but in response to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), he said that employer national insurance contribution increases were not a factor. How can both those things be right? When I speak to the local science sector and to businesses like Labcorp in my constituency, they say that employer NICs have a massive impact. Can the Minister really say in all honesty that he does not think that this Government’s changes to employer NICs had an impact on the deal? \p Chris Bryant: First, let me clear up a point about national insurance contributions. I know that the Conservative party likes to bang on about them, but many people do not know that 50% of businesses and organisations in the UK will pay either exactly the same amount of national insurance or less. That fact is not often, if ever, repeated by Conservative Members.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks whether AstraZeneca had cited national insurance contributions as a reason for withdrawing. It has not, so far as I am aware. I would not tell the House anything that I did not believe to be true. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers, and I have a respectful question. The axiom “it takes money to make money” is a foundational policy for many businesses but, for some of us in this place, another phrase comes to mind: “penny wise and pound foolish.” Saving a little now may help a lot in the future, so will the Minister kindly and respectfully explain how the Government intend to encourage long-term, renewable investment so that businesses can rely on the Government to fulfil their obligations? How will the Minister ensure that companies throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland feel that growth and investment will be supported and fostered? \p Chris Bryant: I could read out the long list of investments made in the last few months, except I do not think that Mr Speaker would let me. I do not think we have time, and you would get bored with me, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member makes an important point. At the moment, I am engaged in negotiations on a significant possible investment.

We must ensure that we are delivering value for money for the British taxpayer, and that we are not throwing money away unnecessarily. Of course, there comes a moment when we have to make a judgment, and we made a judgment that came remarkably close to the £90 million offered by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite the fact that AstraZeneca’s R&D contribution had gone down from £150 million to £90 million. We made a significant offer, but for whatever reason, it did not get it over the line.

Obviously, we always want to get deals over the line if we possibly can, and there are competing demands for different kinds of investment, but I assure the hon. Member that our aim is always to try to make sure that we are at the forefront of all the nations seeking such investment, especially in this kind of technology.

The hon. Member is right about Northern Ireland. I, as a Welshman, bang the drum for Wales, and he bangs the drum for Northern Ireland—and quite rightly so. \p Catherine McKinnell: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on this Government’s plans to reform school accountability.

Before I begin, I want to say that I am devastated to hear that a boy has died after a stabbing at a school in Sheffield. My heart goes out to his family, friends and the entire school community at this very distressing time. We are in contact with the school and the council to offer support, and investigations are under way. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children.

This Government are clear about the need to secure the very best education for our young people, and we are determined that our schools are reformed to deliver that ambition to enable every child to achieve and thrive. That reform begins at the very start of a child’s journey, with an early years system that sets up our children for the best start in life. That means brilliant schools, with excellent, qualified staff, driving high and rising standards in all parts of our country. It reflects our determination to ensure that we break, in the generations ahead, the unfair link between background and opportunity.

Like so many in this House, I know the value of a brilliant school because I went to one in the west end of Newcastle, in the north-east. My school set high standards for all its pupils. It nurtured my talents and love of learning, and it propelled me forward to university and a career in law. So I know full well that the system can work and that a good school can be an incredible force for good. My school set high standards and expected us all to aim high. High standards and high expectations are this Government’s vision for every child and every school in our country. We will set no ceiling on what children can achieve.

We must recognise that Members from all parts of the House, including David Blunkett and Michael Gove, have driven forward great educational reform. Reform has also been driven by the dedication and determination of teachers across the country. I benefited from the first statutory national curriculum, introduced by Lord Baker in 1988. The arrival of Ofsted and the common inspection framework brought far greater rigour to school inspections. Numeracy hour and literacy hour brought a clear focus to the impact and importance of high-quality teaching, in and of itself. Performance tables brought new transparency for parents, and SATs showed children’s attainment across key stages for the first time.

The sponsored academy programme, started by Labour and expanded by the Conservatives, has been instrumental in raising standards in many schools. Multi-academy trusts brought diversity, innovation and a drive for improvement to our schools. The focus on evidence and pragmatism was embodied in the Education Endowment Foundation. There was a switch to phonics in the wake of the Rose review, and a focus on a curriculum rich in knowledge. All of those reforms brought changes to our system, transforming the life chances of millions of children.

We understand, better than any previous generation, what works to drive up standards for children. We know, more clearly than ever before, that a great education for every child is not an impossible promise, but one that  Governments can and must deliver. We are determined, more fiercely than ever before, to use that understanding and knowledge to take our schools forward. However, in the past decade, the ambition for excellence which had powered Governments from the left and the right, and the appetite for reforms that delivered better life chances for our children, have faded, and the system has drifted.

Conservative Members may not like hearing that, so let me remind them about this Government’s inheritance in July, which tells a less happy story: a third of children are finishing primary school without the reading, writing and maths skills they need; children with special educational needs are struggling to get the right support, after spending years in a system that is not serving them; the attainment gap, between those from well-off backgrounds and those who are less privileged, is shamefully wide; young people in London are 70% more likely to enter university compared with their peers in the north-east, where I went to school; and hundreds of thousands of children are in schools that are stuck, receiving poor Ofsted judgments year on year.

This Government are impatient for our children’s success. They get only one childhood, so we will not rest from ensuring that they get the best education they can and we will not tolerate our children being let down. We will not sit back and await changes in schools from governance changes alone. This Labour Government will stop at nothing to improve schools and children’s life chances. We can and must build on the legacy of reform, reignite the ambition for excellence and drive the change our children need, to push once more for high and rising standards in every school, and to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.

A key part of that change must be a reformed and improved approach to both inspection and accountability that champions good practice, encourages collaboration in schools and, crucially, shines a light on all areas of strength and weakness. Today, the Department for Education and Ofsted are together setting out plans for a new era of accountability, and a renewed ambition for every child and every school. Schools that are stuck but have the capacity to improve must be supported and pushed to do so. We will get our new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams, whose members are expert school leaders, in early. We will use them to facilitate faster improvement, using knowledge, experience and the reports of reformed, high-quality inspections to turn schools around. We will work to chart a path to progress, and intervene in way that is effective, bespoke and proportionate, making a difference as early as possible. Today, we are announcing over £20 million for the new RISE teams over the next 15 months. Our first 20 advisers are already in place. They will work with schools across the country to drive improvement and share best practice, because when one school fails, we have all failed the children of that school.

This new era of accountability will come with a new era of inspection. Single headline grades pushed our system on and brought proper scrutiny to our schools, but the time for change has come. They had become high stakes for schools but inadequate to drive the change that our children need—too blunt, too rough and too vague, leaving too many schools without a proper diagnosis and not clear on how to improve. We need a more diagnostic   approach that is targeted and focused, raising the bar on what we expect from schools, with the ingredients of a great education each given their own grade, new report cards identifying excellence and shining a light on performance, clarity for parents, and challenge backed by support for schools.

Those diagnostics will drive our approach to improvement. The worst performing schools, whether local authority maintained or academies, will be moved to a strong trust. We will never flinch from bringing in new leadership when children’s life chances demand it, but in this new era of accountability we want schools to support each other. We will foster a self-improving system, where all seek to raise their standards. A proposed new top grade of “exemplary” will signal educational practice that is simply too good for schools to keep to themselves. When a school is awarded “exemplary” in any area, what it is doing should be shared across the country so that others can learn from the very best. Our quest for high and rising standards is universal. We want good schools to become great, and great schools to become even better, sharing their excellence along the way.

Reformed accountability will underpin everything else that we do in education, whether that is delivering better special educational needs and disabilities provision in mainstream schools, or getting to the bottom of the attendance crisis. Inclusion and attendance will both be part of raising standards across our schools.

The changes that we are making to accountability will draw on the wisdom of the entire sector. Today, the Department and Ofsted launch 12-week consultations, seeking the views of those who know the school system best—teachers, school leaders and parents—on the principles needed for inspection, support and intervention. Ofsted has already drawn on the findings of its Big Listen initiative to inform its approach to future inspections, but further action is needed. Ofsted’s consultation will seek the views of parents, carers, professionals and learners on how Ofsted conducts inspections and the way it reports them. The consultation includes proposals for new inspection methodology, alongside the proposed inspection framework, toolkits and report cards, to change how inspections look and feel for schools. Consultation and parental involvement are essential. Neither the Government nor Ofsted can drive up standards for children alone. We have excellent schools and trusts across our country, which have come about thanks to the hard work of school leaders, teachers and others, and reforms passed in this House. They have raised standards down the decades.

The Government believe that the best way to celebrate success is to multiply it, because where someone is born, their family, their city and their parents’ income should not determine their access to the life-changing power of a good education. The measures for school accountability that I have outlined will support and challenge every school to do better for its pupils, share its successes, and bring high and rising standards to every corner of the country, so that every child can go to a good local school, and look forward to a bright future. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Laura Trott: I am grateful to the Schools Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her words: our thoughts and prayers are with the parents of the 15-year-old boy whose life was so tragically cut short, and with the teachers and pupils at All Saints Catholic high school.

We are promised today a better and faster approach to school improvement, but what we have in front of us is a proposed system that is slower and weaker. The Secretary of State repeatedly talked about a new era today. It is a new era: one of regression, confusion and poorly thought out policy. We have had that consistently with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill over the last few months. The Education Secretary said that the Bill did not cut pay. It did. The Government said that the Bill would not reduce school choice, yet their own impact assessment says that it does. Now we have a speech that says that academisation is a key driver of rising standards, yet the Government are taking away automatic academy orders in the Bill.

Once again with the Secretary of State, there is a gap between her rhetoric and the reality. The reality is weaker accountability, weaker standards and a slower response. The Minister, whom I respect, has been sent out in the place of the Secretary of State, who is happy to give a speech to a think-tank but not to the House, to try to sell the nonsense that the proposal will mean faster school improvement, when the Secretary of State’s own document released today shows an 18-month delay in turning around schools. Instead of immediate new management in a failing school, which is what happens at the moment, the Secretary of State proposes to get a team of Department for Education bureaucrats to come in for 18 months. Only after they make no improvements will the Education Secretary consent to actually getting a new team in place to lead the school. What will that mean? More children in failing schools for longer.

As the Minister says, we know what works to turn around failing schools. A good academy trust taking over a failing school is the best intervention we can make to turn schools around. There is no evidence whatsoever that the approach proposed today, with a delay and with a RISE team going in, will be any better. Can the Minister confirm that she has no evidence that her approach of delaying the academy order will be better? Can she point to where her proposed approach has been trialled effectively? It is unconscionable to foist a new system into place that is not evidenced and that will make things worse, not better.

The loudest criticisms of ending the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies do not even come from the Opposition, but from the Children’s Commissioner, a former schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs. A Government Back Bencher has said,

“making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]

I agree.

We have consistently seen that where the academy order is not mandatory, there are endless legal delays. Just last week, the Secretary of State revoked an academy order after the school threatened legal action. That is exactly what those who have raised concerns said would  happen—it is utterly shameful. I ask the Minister: how many cohorts of children have to pass through a failing school before the Secretary of State will take action? How many children will they fail before they do something?

Academisation works—even the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill admits that. But what is Labour’s much-anticipated grand alternative? New regional school improvement teams. What is in the place of expert academy trusts with proven leadership taking over schools? The Minister talked of 20 advisers. To put that in context, the Harris academy trust alone has over 90 expert staff focused on school improvement. Does the Minister really think that 20 people is sufficient? How does that compare with the number of people in the Department’s communications team, for example? What is happening to all the schools due to receive structural intervention from the beginning of this year? Are we replacing new management with vague advice? All this is doing is creating a weaker system and uncertainty and delay, and it is children from the most deprived areas who will suffer the most.

On Ofsted, the Government claim that parents and teachers wanted clarity. In response, we have moved from four to five ratings, multiple different categories, including one more for safeguarding, and no overall score. The new system being proposed today is complicated and pleases nobody. The Association of School and College Leaders has said that the new grading system is “bewildering”. What is the Minister’s response?

Another day, another chaotic reset attempt from this Government. It is educational vandalism, however they try to dress it up. The Children’s Commissioner said last week that the schools Bill would leave children

“spending longer in failing schools”.

Minister, she is right, isn’t she? \p Catherine McKinnell: Perhaps the right hon. Lady would recognise the legacy that her Government left behind: schools crumbling, standards falling, a lose-lose-lose special educational needs and disabilities system, and a generation missing from England’s schools. It is no wonder that a shadow Minister admitted that they should hang their heads in shame over their record.

In little over 100 days, this Labour Government have moved education back to the centre of national life, with breakfast clubs in primaries, savings for families on uniform costs, nurseries for families, schools being rebuilt across the country, better pay for teachers, school report cards, the development of a broader and richer curriculum, and a child poverty taskforce to clean up the Tories’ mess.

Labour is delivering a new era for school standards, overhauling school inspection and accountability, and driving high and rising standards for every child in every school. We will create a one-stop-shop for parents with our new digital school profiles, and we will challenge the 600 stuck schools that have received consecutive “poor” Ofsted judgments. That is the new front in the fight against low expectations, and our RISE teams will spearhead the stronger, faster system, prioritising those schools.

On top of those measures, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will improve standards by getting excellent qualified teachers in every classroom to teach a cutting-edge curriculum so that parents know their  child will get an excellent core offer. As part of our plan for change, we are giving every child the best start in life. That is the difference that a Labour Government will make. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I thank the Minister for her statement, and I associate myself with her remarks about the tragic incident in Sheffield.

The consultations that the Minister has announced are being launched in the context of considerable pressures in our education system, particularly the crisis in the SEND system, which has far-reaching consequences for every part of the sector, and the serious problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers. The Education Committee has heard from stakeholders that accountability pressures can encourage exclusionary practices to maintain academic performance. School leaders regularly raise concerns that the lack of resources to meet the needs of children with SEND makes it hard for them to meet the needs of every child. How does the Department plan to safeguard children with SEND to ensure that accountability pressures on schools do not lead to exclusionary practices but instead promote inclusive approaches that support the needs of students with SEND? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that issue. Improving the SEND system is clearly a focal point for delivering on our opportunity mission to break the link between background and opportunity. We have made a clear commitment to inclusive mainstream education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to give local authorities more levers on admissions, and Ofsted has made it clear that inclusion will be a key feature of inspection—not instead of high and rising standards, but as well as. She will know that we are keeping this matter under review. Our reform plans are in progress, and we will make further announcements on them in due course. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the tragic stabbing in Sheffield? At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the boy who was stabbed to death.

Ensuring that every child has the opportunity of an excellent education so that they can thrive is one of the most important jobs that a Government can do. School inspection and improvement have long needed reform, and we Liberal Democrats have been clear in our calls for the single-word Ofsted judgment to go. Those judgments simply do not give parents the information that they need to make well-informed decisions about what is right for their child, and they have fostered an adversarial culture that has failed schools, teachers and, in turn, our children.

However, a move away from single-word to multiple-word judgments will do little to bring about change on its own. We need a culture shift so that Ofsted, teachers, school leaders and parents are partners, rather than  adversaries, in the process of school improvement and assessment. Is the Minister confident that these proposals will achieve that culture shift so that the inspector is seen as a critical friend rather than someone to be feared?

The Minister has spoken a lot in recent months about the importance of mainstream inclusivity in tackling the SEND crisis. Although the report card will take into account inclusivity—in the broad sense of that word—there is no dedicated assessment of how a school’s environment and provision cater to children and young people with SEND. Given how many thousands are missing out on the support that they need, and the importance of that issue to schools, should that element not be assessed on its own merits?

Finally, I am utterly incredulous that we are getting these announcements today, when we are halfway through the Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which makes a significant change to the school improvement regime. It cannot be right that this House is being asked to legislate a new approach to school improvement—namely, repeal of the duty to make an academy order for failing schools—without knowing the outcome of these consultations by Ofsted and the Government. The cart seems to have been put before the horse. School accountability and improvement is too important for changes to be made in this vacuum. I honestly expected better from this Government, and it is disappointing that parliamentary scrutiny— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady will know that she has well exceeded the allotted two minutes. \p Catherine McKinnell: Following the end of headline judgments in September, Ofsted undertook the big listen, and listened very carefully to feedback on the way it conducts inspections while also reviewing the format for reporting on those inspections. I note the hon. Lady’s comments in that regard. In the new system that has been designed, that work has paved the way for the roll-out of school report cards. Subject to consultations—both the Government and Ofsted are very open to the views of the profession—they will be rolled out in September.

Alongside a reformed Ofsted, we are creating the RISE teams, comprised of leaders with a proven track record of improving school standards. Those teams will draw on bespoke improvement plans for stuck schools, with significant investment. The previous Government made £6,000 available for stuck schools; under this Government, it will be more like £100,000 per school to drive that improvement.[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 3WC.] (Correction)

The hon. Lady’s comments in relation to SEND are well made. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), that is something that Ofsted will be judging, looking specifically at inclusion as well as—not instead of—high and rising attainment standards in schools. The reformed accountability and improvement systems very much build on the work of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will: require teachers to have, or work towards, qualified teacher status; ensure that all schools teach a cutting-edge national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review; and restore teaching as an attractive profession through a floor, but no ceiling, for pay and conditions.

All those reforms combined will drive high and rising standards and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child. \p Rachael Maskell: I appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend is doing, but the governance structures of multi-academy trusts lack transparency, not least to the local community. In some areas, their executive boards are choosing members and trustees, without the rigour of accountability. Will my hon. Friend ensure that mechanisms are available to allow far more robust scrutiny of multi-academy trusts, as well as the option to return those schools to the local authority? \p Catherine McKinnell: As part of its proposed reforms, Ofsted will be looking at the leadership of schools, including their governance, because good leadership is clearly the route map to children’s success within them. We are legislating for all schools to have a duty to co-operate with local authorities on place planning and admissions to ensure we have a whole schools system that works together. We encourage collaboration by outstanding, excellent, exemplary schools—trusts in particular—that can share their expertise across the board: a collaborative schools system that serves the community and, where possible, ensures that every child has access to a good local school within their community. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: In my experience, parents have a pretty good instinct for what is a good school, and the great generator of progress has been the academy programme, with headteachers responding to what parents want. We should be giving them more freedom, not less. Is there not a danger that if we create highly complex Ofsted reports with league tables across 40 different areas, we will replace headteachers concentrating on what parents want with a tick-box culture focused on appeasing the man in Whitehall? The solution is not endless auditing but delivering what parents want. \p Catherine McKinnell: I find the notion that parents will not be able to understand more information about their child’s school a bit insulting to parents, who care deeply about their children and their education. Parents tell us they want more information, not less. A one-word judgment does not adequately sum up a school. The Ofsted proposal is to report on nine different areas, all of which are key ingredients of a child’s education. That may enable schools that perform in an exemplary or a very strong way on some measures to be given due credit—where they are tackling attendance or behaviour issues—so that they can share best practice. This will be a self-improving system and we will recognise good practice, but we will target—laser-focused—areas that need to improve. \p Alistair Strathern: In spite of the broken state of SEND provision in my constituency and across the country, I have had the real privilege of meeting some schools that are going above and beyond to support pupils with additional need, but not all schools, whether it in their approach to admissions, provision  or exclusions, are being held to the same standards. As well as this Government’s welcome investment in SEND reforms, how will our changes to accountability ensure that every school is held to the highest possible standards on inclusion? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight inclusion, and that is one of the great opportunities presented. The report card system will look at a range of practice across a school, and inclusion is a part of the proposals. We need to see a more inclusive mainstream system, and better co-operation and collaboration at a local level to ensure that every child, regardless of their special educational need or disability, has access to the excellent education that will set them up to thrive. \p Damian Hinds: There seem to be a lot of narrative resets around in Government at the moment, but I must say that I for one was thrilled and refreshed to hear the hon. Lady speaking about school standards with pride. I was thrilled to hear her speaking about the role of year 6 assessments, phonics and multi-academy trusts in driving improvement. It is perhaps a good thing the Government Dispatch Box does not have wing mirrors, because not all her colleagues looked quite as excited as I was. I admire her bravery, but I say to her that with words must come deeds if she is serious about this. One thing she could do is excise from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill those large elements of part 2 that undermine the freedoms and flexibilities for academies and academy trusts that have enabled such improvements to take place. Will she do it? \p Catherine McKinnell: Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a whole package of measures that will not only deliver landmark reforms to child safeguarding, but unleash the ability of all schools to collaborate and work together in operating under this new accountability system to drive high and rising standards. This will ensure that every child has the offer of a national curriculum, a qualified teacher in every classroom, and high and rising standards in every school in England. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for her statement, particularly considering the awful news she had to convey to this House. As a former teacher, I saw at first hand the damage that high-stakes single-word Ofsted judgments had on teachers and headteachers not just in my constituency of Harlow, but across Essex. I welcome this Government’s focus on raising standards in our schools, but does she recognise that under the previous Government there was far too much focus on stick rather than carrot when it came to supporting teachers? Any change to the Ofsted framework needs to support our hard-working teachers, whose mental health and wellbeing are rock bottom at the moment. \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I commend him for his experience in the classroom, which is clearly valuable. We always want to encourage more teachers. Indeed, the whole reasoning behind these reforms is to create an accountability system that recognises good practice and identifies where improvements can be made, but also diagnoses how such improvements can be made and ensures there is the ability to create a self-improving system among our schools,  so that they can support one another to drive forward those improvements in the interests of everybody. It is not about punishing schools; it is about supporting schools to create those improvements, which we know that they want and we want to see for children. \p Caroline Voaden: Headteachers in my constituency of South Devon have expressed some disappointment today at the reform in the Ofsted regime; they said it offered the opportunity for fundamental reform but they do not see that. For example, there are no details on how inclusion will be measured, which we know is absolutely crucial for addressing the SEND crisis. As this is such a key part of the new inspection process, can the Minister assure the House that details of how inclusion will be measured will be made available while there is still time for meaningful consultation? \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Lady raises an important point and we absolutely want to hear from schools about how issues like inclusion can be successfully measured and incentivised and held accountable as part of this system. Along with the document Ofsted has produced today it has produced toolkits that set out its inspection framework, and I urge the hon. Lady and those in her constituency who are making representations to take a look. If additional issues are outstanding, of course she should get in touch. \p Helena Dollimore: I thank the Minister for her statement and her commitment to driving up standards in all our schools—and I gently invite those on the Conservative Benches who seem to think that multi-academy trusts are a panacea for everything to take a look at the experience of my constituents in Hastings and Rye, where we have been spectacularly failed by some particularly bad academy chains. Nowhere is this rise in school standards more urgently needed than my constituency, where over half of young people leave school without the equivalent of a grade C in GCSE maths and English. Three out of three secondary schools in Hastings are currently rated as requiring improvement and at one of them, Ark Alexandra, 123 children left last term because they did not feel that school was meeting their needs. Will my hon. Friend urgently meet me to discuss these issues and how we can drive up school standards in Hastings and Rye? \p Catherine McKinnell: I will happily meet my hon. Friend. I know she is committed to securing better outcomes for the schools and children in her area. We are making these reforms so that we can go further to make improvement better and faster. We want to add to the tools in our box to help schools improve. We are not taking anything away; we are only adding to the ability to ensure we get the change within our school system that far too many children desperately need. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: How many structural interventions does the Minister expect schools to get each year—not RISE interventions but structural interventions? \p Catherine McKinnell: We expect the range of structural interventions to continue as currently, at least for the next 12 months, because we will continue to intervene where schools are causing concern and to mandate structural change. We will also continue to mandate it  where significant improvements are required in schools. We will, however, see a doubling of the number of schools that need significant improvement through the RISE system; so we are not reducing the number of interventions that the previous Government undertook, but doubling the number of schools being helped and supported to improve. \p Shaun Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. In Telford there are five stuck schools. The rise in investment from £6,000 to potentially £100,000 per stuck school means that up to £470,000 of extra investment is coming the way of Telford schools. From speaking to my wife, who is a primary school teacher in Telford, I know that it is about not just money, but peer support and tapping into excellence and expertise. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the money, which is game changing, will also be accompanied by that extra support? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend has correctly identified that we see the future of school improvement as very much driven by a whole school self-improving system, where schools will support one another to drive that improvement. We are putting the extra money in place and we really want to be laser-focused on those 600 schools that have been stuck on far too low a rating for far too long, to ensure that the more than 300,000 children in them are supported as quickly as possible with improved outcomes. As my hon. Friend says about peer support, it is important that we tap into knowledge and expertise from trusts that we know are doing an excellent job. \p Joshua Reynolds: I have spoken to a number of headteachers in Maidenhead today, who have told me that what Ofsted is proposing is incredibly overcomplicated, makes “exceptional” seem out of reach and will be a blunt tool that will not allow schools’ individual identities to be taken into account. They still do not believe that anybody can accurately judge a school’s strengths and areas for improvement within two days. What does the Minister have to say to those headteachers, and will she meet me and Maidenhead heads to discuss? \p Catherine McKinnell: I encourage those headteachers to feed back to Ofsted as part of the consultation process. Obviously, it is Ofsted’s consultation process. It determines the mechanisms by which it will undertake the new inspections, and it sets the framework. As the Department for Education, we are responsible for implementing the findings of an Ofsted inspection, but we are interested in making sure that it achieves what we want it to achieve, which is to drive high and rising standards. We are confident that the new framework will do that. The Department for Education also has its consultation document out on how we see the reforms working in practice. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet and discuss that, I would be happy to do so. \p Alice Macdonald: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said today. I recently visited Mile Cross primary school in Norwich, which is a shining beacon of what a local school can provide to its residents. Will she join me in paying tribute to the staff and pupils at Mile Cross? She touched on this in  her statement, but how can we ensure that lessons in good practice are shared from primary schools such as Mile Cross, not just across the county, but across the country? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the good work being done by schools in her local area. We recognise that many schools, both in the trust sector and in the maintained sector, are working tirelessly day in, day out to deliver excellent outcomes for their children. Report cards will clearly identify what needs to improve, and it is important that they do so, but they will also encourage schools to work together to identify the exemplary practices that should be spread more widely. She is right to highlight the many examples in her area and to look forward to schools working across the system to drive improvement across the board. \p Andrew Murrison: How will the selection of colour-coded performance areas on the report card be determined by the views and needs of parents as much as by Ministers and the education establishment? How do the exceptional schools that the Minister has described differ from the beacon schools that the then Labour Government created in 1998 and abolished in 2004? \p Catherine McKinnell: The determination of the report cards is within Ofsted’s remit. It has launched its consultation. The right hon. Gentleman is invited to contribute to the consultation, and I encourage anyone within his local area to do so, too. We are open to feedback. In terms of the retro question, we are very much looking forward to how these reforms can support the Department for Education in its work to target reform where we know it is needed. Our system is not working well, and we know it needs to change. That is why we have introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is why we are designing a school system that supports and challenges every school to deliver for every child. Between our reforms and those that Ofsted is consulting on—we welcome feedback and are open to it—we are confident that together we can deliver those high and rising standards for every child. \p Gurinder Josan: I welcome the Minister’s statement and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have had various roles in voluntary governance, including as chair of a multi-academy trust, as well as in maintained schools, pupil referral units, a faith school and a free school—the list is quite comprehensive—and I would just comment that the argument about pushing schools into one direction or another, whether wholly maintained or wholly academised, is bogus. I congratulate the Minister on focusing on the provisions of the statement about accountability and improvement and not getting diverted by that argument. I have participated in many Ofsted inspections over the years as part of my voluntary governance roles and I can attest to the hard work of all staff across all our schools and academies, as well as the stress that often accompanies— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member will have to perfect putting a short question to the Minister. Perhaps another sentence will do. \p Gurinder Josan: Does the Minister agree that the new school report cards will need to balance the important additional information needed by parents with the requirement for school improvements and protecting staff wellbeing? Will she listen to parents and the whole education sector— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his service, which is hugely important. We often do not recognise enough the work that governors undertake and the important role they play in our school system. We thank all school governors for their service and encourage more people to sign up.

In response to my hon. Friend’s initial comment, he may be interested to know that between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies. That is too long. We need to intervene more quickly, which is why we will use the opportunity of a more diagnostic Ofsted report card to identify where improvements need to happen so that we can get in there with RISE teams much earlier—as soon as a school has failed its inspection—and no longer focus solely on structural intervention, as he said, but on however school improvement can be best undertaken. \p Vikki Slade: One of the most common areas of casework in Mid Dorset and North Poole involves children with special needs. Parents often cite awful experiences of children being manipulated out of school by those schools being made truly hostile places for them and by failures, often at a trust level, to provide even low-cost or no-cost changes, with parents completely ignored in the process. I am interested in understanding why the Minister has not included full accountability and judgments at multi-academy trust level in the reforms, because parents simply have nowhere to go when they need to complain and the problem is with the trust. \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue and what she says sounds very concerning. We are looking at multi-academy trust level accountability and how parents can engage in the relationship with schools, ensuring that the proper lines of accountability are available. I will continue to keep that under review and will report on it in due course. \p Joe Morris: Like the Minister, I am the product of a state school in the north-east, and I am tremendously proud of that fact. During the election, many teachers in Throckley, Hexham, Ponteland, Prudhoe and elsewhere told me on the doorstep that they felt the one-word judgment did not allow sufficient room for subtlety and nuance in the evaluation of schools, and parents felt the same. Will the Minister assure me that this is simply the first step in delivering the high and rising standards that we all need and expect for children across the country? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend spoke to my heart as he referenced areas of his constituency that I represented in this place for 14 years from 2010. He went to an excellent school in the neighbouring constituency. He is right that this really is the first step on the journey  of improving our schools and making sure that every child has the best start in life and the best education possible. \p Sammy Wilson: It is quite right that we measure the performance of schools since we spend billions of pounds on them every year and they affect the life chances of millions of children across the country. Will the Minister explain why she is introducing these new measures to improve standards in schools at the same time as jettisoning the academy system, which was designed to improve standards and disseminate changes to improve schools? What are the implications for individual schools in gathering, holding and presenting the data required to give the information for the nine sections and five different levels? How will she make all that comprehensible to parents? \p Catherine McKinnell: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in reverse order. On the first, I think parents are perfectly capable of understanding a more complex report card than one word. I also disagree with his characterisation of the changes. We are very much about harnessing all the great things that academies have achieved, including the great reforms, improvements and innovations that they have pioneered. We want to spread that right across our school system. The purpose of the report cards is to shine a light on all that great practice so that it can be spread more widely, and to shine a particular spotlight on where improvement is needed, to deliver it as quickly as possible. How Ofsted will deliver is a matter for Ofsted, and if he wishes to respond to its consultation, I am sure his views would be welcome. \p Yuan Yang: I thank the Minister for her remarks, particularly about the funding for regional improvement teams in schools. Two weeks ago, my constituents in Shinfield and Whitley received the devastating news that their local secondary school, Oakbank, had received its worst ever Ofsted report. Parents and former staff at that school have asked me how the Anthem schools trust, which has failed not just schools in my constituency but several others in recent years, can be held to account. Will the Minister set out how the new accountability framework will put in place safeguards against failing multi-academy trusts? \p Catherine McKinnell: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not know the details of the specific school, but a school judged by Ofsted to require special measures will still receive structural intervention. If it is a maintained school, it will become an academy. If it is already an academy, which I believe this school is, it will be transferred to a new and stronger trust. In the shorter term, while the RISE teams are focusing on stuck schools and on building their capacity, a school requiring significant improvement will, by default, continue to receive structural intervention. We propose that from September 2026 a school in that category will receive mandatory targeted intervention from RISE. Schools will be supported much more quickly to drive those improved outcomes for children, without having to wait for structural intervention. \p Monica Harding: My teachers in Esher and Walton have greeted today’s announcement with a degree of cynicism, which is to be expected after  feeling ignored for the last 10 years. One wrote to me saying, “Same system, different name.” Another said, “Same old thing, just different words.” Will the Minister reassure them that this is not just business as usual? Might she expand on the levels of collaboration that she talked of? \p Catherine McKinnell: I encourage the teachers mentioned by the hon. Lady to feed into the consultation. Let me allay some of their concerns. Although how it conducts its consultations and reports on its inspections is for Ofsted, as a Department we are very focused on creating a self-improving system of collaboration, using the new report cards to identify exemplary practice and share that more widely. That will identify where support is required and encourage schools to work in collaboratively to deliver it. RISE teams will bolster that targeted approach, particularly for stuck schools, which we know have been ignored for far too long. I hope that the teachers she referenced will feel more confident about the system, and I encourage them to respond to the consultation. \p Andrew Cooper: The laser focus on stuck schools will be incredibly important for the life chances of children who have been failed for too long. I am pleased that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is, with up to £100,000 for each school. Ofsted research makes the point that in some unstuck schools, the role of MATs in raising expectations and developing curriculum subject expertise has been critical, but in others that have remained stuck, the MATs have not been effective and are not providing the right quality support. Will the Minister say more about how RISE teams can work with MATs to improve the support that they offer? \p Catherine McKinnell: Children get only one childhood, so it matters deeply that they get to go to a great school while they are still children, which is why we are determined to deliver faster improvement to the schools that need it. While academisation has been successful in many places, it can be a slow process, and not all schools can be matched up with strong trusts, which is why we will utilise the RISE teams to support schools to work together, drive improvement and create that whole-system reform that we know children need to see. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers and welcome the Government’s decision to uplift accountability and transparency in the schooling sector. Could the Minister clarify what help and support will be offered to struggling schools to ensure that this accountability also brings about the improvements that are undoubtedly and clearly essential? Further to the question my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked on academy sector education, has the Minister had any discussions with her counterparts in Northern Ireland on the impact of decisions made in Westminster on the academy sector back home? \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming today’s statement. We are very much strengthening the tools we can use for faster and more effective school improvement with the introduction of the new RISE teams. In addition, as he points out, the  greater transparency and diagnostic approach of Ofsted reports will enable us to identify both where great practice is and where there is room for improvement. I will take away his question about the impact on other parts of the UK. \p Alex McIntyre: Parents of SEND children in Gloucester will welcome today’s statement and the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on SEND and inclusion in our schools. Will the Minister confirm that the measures set out by this Labour Government will drive up standards for all children in Gloucester, and will she meet me and parents in my city, who have for years battled the broken system left behind by the previous Conservative Government? \p Catherine McKinnell: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We wish to see a change in the drive towards an inclusive mainstream as part of this new Ofsted accountability system, and the changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills will obviously support those endeavours. The curriculum and assessment review will also look at how barriers to inclusion can be removed in the curriculum and assessment system, and at how we can get high standards and expectations of great progress for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. \p Warinder Juss: I associate myself with the Minister’s earlier comments about the tragic events in Sheffield, where another young life has sadly been lost to knife crime.

Does the Minister agree that these landmark reforms will not only drive high and rising standards, but help in the recruitment and retention of teachers? Will she also confirm that we will engage fully with parents and teachers on the development of plans for school report cards? \p Catherine McKinnell: I absolutely agree. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for children. We absolutely need to drive recruitment, but our greatest tool for recruitment is retention—we need to hold on to the fantastic teachers who are in our schools. A more holistic and broader picture of schools will shine a light on the great practice going on, the hard work and the context in which schools operate, and will deliver on the desire, which I know every teacher has, to deliver high and rising standards for the children in their care. \p Sarah Smith: I have worked closely with schools in some of the most disadvantaged parts of our country, and I have seen academy trust after academy trust fail to turn around schools in some of the most challenging circumstances, leaving behind some of our most disadvantaged learners. I welcome the Government’s commitment to support the turnaround with cash, with £100,000 being made available as compared with the £6,000 that was previously provided. Does that not show the difference in the importance placed by Labour on turning around failing schools compared with the Tories? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend puts it very well. We absolutely need to be laser-focused on schools that have consistently underperformed but have not  received the support, help or intervention they need to succeed. We will be laser-focused on supporting those schools to achieve the outcomes that we know they want to achieve for their children but just need the support to do so. \p Peter Swallow: I welcome the Government’s commitment to overhauling Ofsted, and particularly the commitment to ensuring that SEND is at the heart of every school, because a truly outstanding school is one that has inclusivity at the heart of everything it does. Will the Minister commit to listening, through the consultation, to the parents and carers of SEND kids, to ensure that they are at the heart of the reforms the Government are delivering? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend advocates very powerfully for the families in his area who have been struggling with a SEND system that is clearly in need of reform. The changes that Ofsted and the Department are proposing are designed to create a more inclusive and effective schools system for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. Indeed, we will continue to listen to their voices as we plan our reforms. \p Josh Dean: I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. I recently met headteachers in my community who detailed the challenges they face: SEND, recruitment and retention, and persistent absence. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s reforms will start to remedy those issues and break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people in my constituency? Does she agree that the reforms are an important step in fixing the damage inflicted on our education system by the Conservative party over the past 14 years? \p Catherine McKinnell: I absolutely recognise the challenges that my hon. Friend sets out. Many schools right across the system, whether local authority maintained or academies, face similar challenges. The report card system will be a really important reflection of a whole school’s experience, and will laser-focus on areas such as attendance and inclusion, creating toolkits to enable schools to know the standards they need to reach, but also enabling schools to work together collaboratively, supporting one another to achieve those outcomes for children. We are not in the game of punishing schools; we are in the game of supporting them to bring about the change that we know they want to see. \p Sam Rushworth: I have visited more than a dozen schools in my constituency since being elected, and I am always overwhelmed by the passion of the teachers who have to work in really trying circumstances. They are often very under-resourced to deal with children who are ill-prepared for school and a growing caseload of children with special educational needs, so I really welcome the additional investment with the RISE teams. As the Minister will know, Conservative Members are fond of quoting our improvement in the PISA rankings, which is the legacy of the generation who experienced Sure Start—where children had a Sure Start centre nearby, that generation achieved 0.8 grades higher at GCSE. What will the Government do to ensure that we have more children coming to school who are prepared for school? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend has very much diagnosed the challenge. We have a persistently and stubbornly high disadvantage gap, where we know that children are leaving primary school without the fundamentals of reading, writing and maths. That goes on to impact their outcomes in secondary school, but we know that starts at the very earliest stage. That is why we are investing in the early years, speech and language therapy, and nursery provision. We are absolutely determined to improve the early learning development goal outcomes for children and give every child the best start in life. \p Anneliese Midgley: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but in my constituency GCSE results are among the lowest in the country and a quarter of pupils are classed as persistently absent. What message does the Minister have for children, parents and teachers about plans to drive high and rising standards to provide more and better opportunities in my constituency? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the children in her area, and she is absolutely right to champion better outcomes. We know that the journey towards not achieving the grades that children should achieve starts at the earliest stage, which is why, as I have said, we are investing in the early years. The Ofsted report cards will shine a light on the issue of attendance—we know that children cannot get a great education if they are not at school to get it, and attendance must be a priority for schools—but we recognise the challenges, so we want to support schools to be able to achieve better attendance figures, and we will do so by diagnosing those challenges and putting in place the self-supporting schools system that can drive those better outcomes. \p Luke Charters: The Harris Federation has just revealed that its chief executive’s pay is in excess of half a million pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need much more transparency and accountability when it comes to the excessive pay of some multi-academy trust leaders? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will take it away and look at it. \p David Baines: Under the last Government, most schools in my constituency suffered real-terms funding cuts and child poverty increased by more than 50%. Reform of the inspection system is needed and is welcome, but does the Minister agree that the key to children doing well and good outcomes being measured is investment and support for the families of children from pre-birth onwards, as well as fair funding for all our schools? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has not only diagnosed the problem, but recommended a solution. We have established a child poverty taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State for Education along with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to take a fundamental look at the levers that we have in Government to support children so that they no longer grow up in poverty, which we know is affecting their outcomes both in education and in life. \p Wendy Morton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 30 July I wrote to the Treasury on behalf of a constituent. Despite having chased that up twice, I am still awaiting a response, 130 days later. Similarly, on 29 October I wrote to the Treasury about a budgetary matter, and was told on 30 January that my query was being transferred to the Department for Education—a delay of 65 working days. What advice can you give me on how to elicit a response from Ministers? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Member for her point of order and for advance notice of it. It is, of course, disappointing to hear of these delays, which will have been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. If she requires further advice, I am sure that the Table Office will be happy to provide it. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I am experiencing difficulties in getting responses from the Government. Back in November, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I wrote to the Chancellor about budgetary measures, but we did not receive a reply. I raised that on 3 December —during Treasury questions—and again on 27 December, and I chased the Government further on 14 January, but we have still received no response. A food business in my constituency wanted some support with exporting last summer. We chased the Government on 5 August, 24 September, 12 November, and 6 and 28 January, but we have received no response.

Finally—this is my final example, rather than the final response that is missing; I could give many more examples—a constituent had a problem involving vehicle excise duty, so I wrote to the Government on 4 October. Again, despite that being repeatedly chased, there has been no response. What on earth can Members do? Either the Government do not know the answers, or they have complete disrespect for the House, its Members and my constituents in not providing them. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will have heard me say earlier that this is not a matter for the Chair, but she has taken the correct steps by raising it during questions and on other occasions. Like the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), she could take advice from the Table Office, and those on the Government Front Bench will certainly have heard her concerns. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Caroline Nokes: The reasoned amendment has not been selected. \p Liz Kendall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill will help deliver the biggest ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse, which has now reached an astonishing £55 billion a year. That includes fraud against our public services, such as by those who abuse the tax system; fraud by dishonest companies that use deception to win public contracts and manipulate invoices; and benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals, which now stands at a staggering £7.4 billion a year.

There have always been people who commit fraud against the state—tragically, this is not a new problem—but at a time when families across the country are working so hard to pay their bills and put food on the table, when more than 7 million people are stuck in pain and discomfort on NHS waiting lists, and when a shameful 4.3 million children in Britain are growing up poor, it is simply unforgiveable that the Conservatives allowed fraud to spiral out of control. During their 14 long years in government, they failed to put in place a proper plan to crack down on fraud, and there is no better symbol of this than their failure to update the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to properly crack down on benefit fraud. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Over the last decade, fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated in the techniques that they use to steal people’s money, using data, technology and all manner of scams. In response, banks and other companies have transformed their ability to spot and stop fraud, and to protect their customers’ money, but the last Government completely failed to do the same for taxpayers. In all their time in power, and with all the developments in technology and the ability to share data and information, they failed to update the DWP’s powers. The Conservatives will no doubt claim that they did introduce measures, but, in truth, they put forward one poorly thought-through measure that was tagged on to another Bill at the tail end of the last Parliament, without any of the proper safeguards or oversight in place. Today, all that changes with our new fraud Bill.

This Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the large companies and dodgy businessmen who try to defraud our public services, it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system, and it is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. Taxpayers deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely and that benefits are there only for those who need them, not fraudsters who take advantage. \p Richard Burgon: The Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that we need to pursue criminal gangs that are engaged in widespread organised theft. I put a written question to the Department for  Work and Pensions to ask about the amount lost through personal independence payment fraud, and I was told that only 0.2% of such claims were fraudulent in 2022-23. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we pursue organised criminal gangs, it is really important that we make it clear that there cannot be a hostile approach to disabled people claiming PIP or disabled people more widely who are using the benefits system as they deserve to? \p Liz Kendall: People who are genuinely entitled to claim benefits have nothing to worry about from this Bill, but we believe that the £7.4 billion wasted every year through benefit fraud must be cracked down on.

To the corrupt companies with their dodgy covid contracts, to the organised criminal gangs and to every single individual knowingly cheating the system, our message today is clear: we will find you, we will stop you and we will get our money back. \p Jim Shannon: No one denies that there are those who are blatantly cheating the system, as I referred to in my oral question to the Secretary of State earlier today. On her point about fair play, however, can she give an assurance to me and to the House? I am concerned that if officials in the Department seek out low-hanging fruit, people who have a genuine disability could be denied their rights. I am concerned about the anxiety, the depression and the physical effects that that might cause. \p Liz Kendall: Actually, the Bill will do the precise opposite. Through the measures relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are saying to the large companies and corporations and to the individuals cheating, “We will treat you equally. We do not allow fraud against the public purse. We want to stop it and get our money back.” \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Liz Kendall: I will make a bit of progress.

I want to start by setting out the measures in the Bill that give the Public Sector Fraud Authority the powers that it needs—further to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised—to fight modern fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public bodies. \p Ben Maguire: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Liz Kendall: I will set this out first. The Bill will provide the authority with new powers to obtain search warrants, to enter premises and seize evidence as part of fraud investigations, to compel businesses and individuals to provide information where there is a suspicion of fraud, and to enable it to better detect and prevent payments made as a result of fraud or error. It will also bring in new debt recovery powers, so that we can get public money back for taxpayers, and new financial penalties that the PSFA can use as an alternative to often lengthy criminal prosecutions.

What happened during the pandemic was completely unacceptable, with billions of pounds squandered by the Conservatives on dodgy deals with their covid cronies. This Bill will help us to get that money back. It will double from six to 12 years the time limit for civil claims  to be brought in alleged cases of covid fraud, giving the PSFA and our new covid counter-fraud commissioner more time to investigate complex cases relating to those who exploited a national emergency for personal profit. \p Meg Hillier: I have spent more than a decade studying fraud and error in the DWP. The Secretary of State is right that levels of fraud have been intransigently high, but my concern is about where there are errors. Quite often, they are made by the Department. My constituent received a £5,000 overpayment. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that people in that situation will not have money taken out of their bank account, and that they will be treated properly if there is a small error on their side or a big error by the Department? \p Liz Kendall: I will come on to that point in a moment, but I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend. In fact, I think that the measures in the Bill will help us to spot such errors and prevent them from happening in the first place. People make genuine mistakes. We do not want them to build up errors and build up debt that they have to repay. I think that the Bill is part of solving that problem. I will say more about that in a moment.

I turn to fraud and error specifically in our welfare system. The Bill will modernise and extend the DWP’s anti-fraud powers, bringing it into line with other bodies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that we can use technology and data to find and prevent fraud more quickly and effectively; so that our serious and organised counter-fraud investigators have the powers they need to search premises and seize evidence, including from criminal gangs, and bring offenders to justice; and so that we can ensure that when people owe us money and, crucially, when they can pay, we get that money back for taxpayers. That all comes with strong and new safeguards and with independent oversight on the face of the Bill, as I will set out in detail. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Conservatives did not do much on this issue except tagging on a Bill at the very end of their tenure. The Information Commissioner’s Office was very critical of the approach taken in that fraud Bill. Can she reassure the House that she has addressed those concerns? \p Liz Kendall: I can indeed reassure the House. The Information Commissioner was rightly critical of the last measure introduced by the Conservatives—the third-party data measure. He has written to us today, and we will make sure that his letter is published. He says that he has reviewed our proposals and is very clear that the current measure more tightly scopes the type of information that can and cannot be shared; specifies much more clearly those in the power’s scope; requires a statutory code of practice before measures are taken; and includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of these functions. I am more than happy to publish that and share it with the House, because I think it shows the changes this Government are making.

We are serious about getting these measures through. We understand people’s concerns, and we have addressed them. The Information Commissioner’s letter should reassure the House. \p Andy McDonald: My right hon. Friend has the House’s wholehearted support in pursuing the recovery of funds taken by fraud and error. The National Audit Office estimates that, in the last financial year, £39 billion of tax revenue was not received due to fraud and error, compared with £7 billion in overpaid benefits classed as fraud, which we want to pursue. Can she reassure the House that an appropriate level of resources will be targeted at recovering this large sum of money, which will bring better dividends back to the Treasury? \p Liz Kendall: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which he knows the Chancellor and the Treasury team are looking at seriously. The clear message from this Government is, “If you are getting money to which you are not entitled or owe money to the taxpayer through either unpaid taxes or fraud, that is wrong.” We treat everything the same, large or small. We believe in our public services and our social security system, and we want people to know that every single penny of their money is wisely spent and goes to those in the greatest need. \p Rachel Gilmour: As a Member of the party that introduced the state pension, I am behind the Government on this Bill because we all want to cut down on tax fraud and evasion. But I am concerned that pensioners are included under this blanket of Government scrutiny, and it seems that the only thing they have done to deserve it is to get a bit old. \p Liz Kendall: One of the new measures introduced by the Bill, the eligibility verification measure, explicitly excludes the state pension. I reassure the hon. Lady on that point. \p Shaun Davies: In places like Telford, it is a basic principle that people pay into the system and then take out of the system, or their neighbours do, when they are in need. The companies and individuals that are defrauding national benefits are often also defrauding local authority benefits and schemes. Will we extend these powers so that local government is able to work with national Government to pursue this fraud? \p Liz Kendall: I reassure my hon. Friend that local authorities will be able to put examples to the Public Sector Fraud Authority for scrutiny. The new powers introduced by the Bill will enable the PSFA to crack down on precisely those issues. \p Ben Maguire: Will the Minister give way? \p Liz Kendall: I will crack on a little, and then I will be happy to take an intervention.

I will now spell out each of the Bill’s measures in turn. First, there are powers to investigate potential fraud. The Bill will mean that, for the first time, the DWP’s serious and organised crime investigators will be able to apply to a court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters and criminal gangs to seize items for evidence, such as computers and phones. At the moment, our investigators have to rely on the police to do this. The Bill will enable us to act much more quickly to gather evidence, to take control of and speed up investigations, while also freeing up police time.  These powers will be used only when approved by the courts, and the police will continue to be responsible for arresting suspects.

Secondly, the Bill will update the DWP’s information-gathering powers for investigating fraud. At the moment, we have the power to require information from only a limited list of third parties. This does not include key organisations and sectors that could help to prove or disprove suspected fraud, such as airlines.

To add to that, there is limited ability to require responses to requests to be sent electronically. Instead, quite unbelievably, they have to be sent in writing or physically collected, which is time consuming and cumbersome, to say the least. That limitation on our powers completely underlines how the changes in the Bill are long overdue, and the lack of action by the previous Government. The Bill widens who the DWP can compel information from, and it will enable us to require the information to be provided digitally by default.

Thirdly, our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to require banks or other financial institutions to provide crucial data to help identify incorrect benefit payments people might be getting, including fraudulently, such as if someone has too much in savings, making them ineligible for a benefit, or if they are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK. People should not be getting benefits they are not entitled to, and the alerts will make the process of identifying potential fraudsters much simpler, quicker and easier.

However, we know that people lead busy lives and sometimes genuine mistakes happen. The measure will help there too, by finding and putting errors right quickly, preventing people from building up large debts that they then need to repay. I am absolutely determined to reduce benefit mistakes by stopping them from happening in the first place and to avoid debts building up, with all the worry and distress that causes. That is why I have launched the independent investigation into the overpayment of carer’s allowance, in order to learn lessons about what went wrong and ensure that does not happen again.

I want to stress to the House that, under our eligibility verification measure, the DWP will not be able to access people’s bank accounts or look at what they are spending. We will not share any personal information with banks. Once an alert has been issued, any final decision about someone’s benefits will always be taken by a human being and the state pension will be excluded from the measure. There will also be independent oversight of the power on the face of the Bill, with the requirement to produce reports and lay them before Parliament, which I will say more about in a moment. \p Sammy Wilson: The Minister is outlining the actions she intends to take to ensure that errors do not happen and that humans will conduct any reviews. However, once a decision has been made—whether the error was genuine or not, the person should not have received the money—the Bill sets out that the person is still subject to all the measures that would be imposed on people who have deliberately engaged in fraud. That is the real worry. Despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, errors will still be made. Judgments  will have to be made about whether the money, given in error, is recoverable, and if it is recoverable, it will be treated as if that were fraud. \p Liz Kendall: No, it will not be treated in the same way. There is much more we can do to use technology to prevent genuine mistakes and errors building up in the first place, but we also have to use all the technology and information-sharing abilities we have to crack down on fraudsters who will use anything they can to try to defraud the system. I will come to the wider safeguards in the Bill towards the end of my speech, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Transformation and I will be more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail about any other concerns he may have. \p Ben Maguire: On that point, will the Secretary of State give way? \p Liz Kendall: I will; I did promise to do so. \p Ben Maguire: I am interested to hear about the measures in the Bill relating to local authorities and public authorities. Has the Secretary of State considered expanding remit of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate cases of serious mismanagement of funds by local authorities, such as the recent botched sale of Newquay airport by Conservative-controlled Cornwall council, which reportedly cost Cornish taxpayers over £1 million in consultancy fees and the like? \p Liz Kendall: The hon. Gentleman has made his point simply and clearly. The Bill is about tackling fraud and people who have defrauded the public purse. I am sure his local newspaper will write his comments up very clearly.

The fourth chapter of part 2 of the Bill is about widening our ability to punish fraudsters using a financial penalty as an alternative to seeking prosecutions. At the moment, we can issue financial penalties only in cases of benefit fraud. The Bill extends our ability to use them in cases of fraud against any type of DWP payment—for example, if we had any future scheme like the kickstart employment scheme. That will ensure that more fraudsters committing a wider range of fraud can be dealt with swiftly without going to court.

Last but not least, the Bill gives the DWP more power to get back public money that someone owes in cases where they can repay it but repeatedly refuse to do so. This power does not cover people on benefits or in payrolled employment, because money can already be recovered through the social security or pay-as-you-earn systems, but for people who have moved off benefits and are not on PAYE—for example, because they are self-employed or now living off savings—the Bill will enable the DWP to request the bank statements of people we know owe us money but who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, to verify that they have sufficient funds to repay. We can then recover the money from their bank account through either a one-off lump sum or regular deductions. That will be done in a fair and manageable way, with time for the person to make any representations and the right to appeal.

As a last resort, if someone owes us more than £1,000 and continues to repeatedly refuse to engage with us and agree how they will pay the money back, we can go to court and get an order to disqualify that person from driving for up to two years. This is the same power that  the Child Maintenance Service has been able to use for the last 25 years in cases where a parent repeatedly refuses to make payments to support their child. In considering a disqualification order, a court will always check whether the person needs a driving licence for work, because taking it away would be totally counterproductive if they do, and look at other reasons why a license may be essential, such as if the person is disabled or a carer. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with the system. It is an important power that the DWP should have to bring people to the table for a discussion about how they will repay the money that they owe. We are clear that someone keeping public money to which they are not entitled is serious, and will result in serious consequences. \p Ben Lake: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining some of the Government’s thinking behind clause 91. Will she elaborate on whether the Government have considered the fact that such a disqualification would have a disproportionate impact on somebody living in a remote area, compared with those in more urban areas, where there is much greater access to public transport? \p Liz Kendall: As I said, the court will always look at whether the person needs a car for their job, but we cannot say that people are allowed to get away with fraud in different parts of the country. This is about getting money back. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, and who we know have the money to repay what they owe. We can bring them to the table and have a discussion about that repayment. I think that most members of the public would think that that is totally reasonable and fair, and that is the new power that we will have.

Let me turn to the strong new safeguarding measures in the Bill. First, as I have said, there will be independent oversight in the Bill for the eligibility verification measure, and new powers for the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate fraud. I will appoint an independent person to oversee how the EVM is being used and its effectiveness. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), will also appoint an independent person to review the use of the PSFA measures. Both will be required to provide reports to the Government, which will be published and laid before Parliament. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will oversee the investigation powers of the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. Any complaints about the use of the new search and seizure powers in the Bill will be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. \p Kirsty Blackman: This is a genuine question on the power to request information: will the DWP be able to request information from charitable organisations that are perhaps providing support to people, or from Members of Parliament, who may be providing support to constituents who come through our door? \p Liz Kendall: The eligibility verification measure is for banks and financial institutions. It has been tightly defined, which is one of the reasons the Information Commissioner has written his response now. The last Conservative Government just referred to third-party  data. That was not a serious proposal, narrowly defined with proper independent oversight. We want the legislation to pass and be used proportionately and effectively. That is why we have included the proposals as drafted.

The second important point is that there will be a statutory code of practice on how the powers can be applied, which we will consult on during the passage of the Bill, to clearly define the scope and limitations. Thirdly, there will always be vulnerability checks for each individual under the new debt recovery powers to ensure that people are not forced to pay back money that they cannot afford. Last, but by no means least, final decisions affecting benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being. Those decisions will sit alongside the right to reviews and appeals—no ifs, no buts. Put together, I believe that those new safeguards will provide the reassurance that the public and some Members of this House need that the Bill’s powers are proportionate, safe and fair.

The Bill delivers the biggest upgrade to the DWP’s anti-fraud powers in more than 14 years. It brings in new powers to tackle fraud right across the public sector by empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority, and not before time. Our approach is tough but fair: tough on criminals who cheat the system and steal from taxpayers; tough on people who refuse to pay back money; fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier, helping to avoid people getting into debt; fair on those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system; and fair on taxpayers, by ensuring that every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what the Bill will deliver. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Helen Whately: A strongly held Conservative principle is that public money must not be wasted. We hold this view not because we are mean, but because the Government do not have money of their own. What they have, they raise through taxation from all of us. A tiny fraction of every penny that they spend is yours, mine and everyone else’s who pays in. Those who spend public money have a duty to spend it wisely, and ensure that it ends up only with those who should have it, for the purpose for which it was intended. In a big, complex system of government in a country of nearly 70 million people, from time to time that will not happen for a range of reasons—from a form that has been accidentally filled in with the wrong information, or a change of circumstance that someone forgot to notify the jobcentre about, to serious organised fraud—but however taxpayers have lost out, it is incumbent on the state to do all that it can to get their money back. That is what taxpayers rightly expect. It is part of the unwritten contract for collecting that money in the first place. Therefore, it will be no surprise to hear that, in principle, we support the Bill’s aim. In fact, much of the Bill continues work that we did in government, and legislation that was interrupted by the election.

It is important to put what we are discussing today in context. Before the pandemic, fraud and error across the DWP benefits and tax credit system was at a near  record low, but then we had two national crises—first, the pandemic, then war in Ukraine—which piled huge cost of living pressures on families across the UK. During both, we acted rapidly. We set up never-seen-before systems of support in record time. We protected millions of people’s jobs. We paid half of everyone’s energy bills for a year. We got direct payments to the people who needed them the most. I am proud of what we did, and I think that history will look back kindly on how we supported people through those times, but the truth is that when we do something fast at a moment of crisis, that inevitably opens up new vulnerabilities in the system. Disappointingly, against a national spirit of getting through hard times together, some people saw it as a chance to make a quick buck, and we saw a material increase in the amount being lost to fraud within the system. Any and all of us could spell out better uses for that money. That is why, back in May 2022, we published our plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”. We increased the number of frontline counter-fraud professionals in the DWP, created a new Public Sector Fraud Authority and started work on new legal powers to investigate and punish fraudsters. It was a good start. In 2022-23, fraud and error were cut by 10%. We saved £1 billion through the Department’s dedicated counter-fraud activities. The next year we upped that to £1.35 billion, exceeding the £1.3 billion target, yet we were still not satisfied.

In May last year, we published a second fraud plan to save £9 billion by 2027-28, which included hiring more staff to check claims for accuracy, modernising information-gathering powers, broadening the penalty system and investing £70 million in advanced data analytics. In April, we announced plans for a new fraud Bill to align DWP investigations with HMRC, treating benefit fraud like tax fraud and giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests. When the general election was called, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had already passed through the House of Commons. The Bill included the powers the Government are introducing today to require third parties, such as banks, to provide relevant information to the DWP. To the extent that this Bill continues that work, I do not envisage substantial disagreement—albeit we have questions on how the law will work in practice. I also have serious concerns about the powers that the Cabinet Office is giving itself.

Before I deal with those, let me say that I recognise the concerns that people have about the state getting too much information about their finances. Privacy should never be taken lightly. I do not want to live in a country where the Government can access our bank accounts and look at what we have been spending our money on, and I would not support a Bill that would allow the Government to do that, but I believe that it is right for the DWP to learn lessons from HMRC to recoup taxpayers’ money. The fact of the matter is that if someone receives money from the state, it is not unreasonable for the state to investigate if there are signs they are taking money that they should not be.

As I said, I have some questions about how the social security powers in the Bill will be put into practice, and I expect to probe those matters further as the Bill progresses. For instance, on the role of banks, how much testing has been done of the systems that they expect to use?  The Horizon scandal is a recent reminder of how computer systems do not always get it right. What progress has been made on the code of conduct, and when will we see it? I also note that no impact assessment has been done on the cost to banks. Has the Minister met the sector and discussed what the changes mean for it? I know there are concerns within the sector about the lack of detail brought forward by the DWP. If the maximum level of scrutiny allowed under the Bill is demanded by the DWP, how would that work in practice for banks and what would it cost?

On the sanctions that can be meted out under the Bill, we support the Department for Work and Pensions being given further powers to pursue recovery outside of benefits and PAYE, but are the measures outlined in the Bill tough enough? Why is 40% the maximum amount of someone’s capital that can be reclaimed? Allowing for hardship, which the Bill does, why should someone potentially keep the majority of their ill-gotten gains?

It is not clear how the Bill intends to treat carer’s allowance overpayments, which I know from my time as Care Minister are complicated and often accidental, though unfortunately not always. None the less, they are a loss to the taxpayer that should be investigated. We would like to understand in more detail how the savings we are told to expect from the Bill will accrue. How many people does the Government think that will affect, and what proportion is it of the fraud currently being perpetrated? I was concerned the other day to see reports in the media of a number of artificial intelligence schemes being quietly shelved in the Department. It is noticeable that the plans rely heavily on human labour to root out fraud. While I know the Government have to create jobs somehow, I would be interested to hear what consideration has been given to automating some of the processes in future. That too will help ensure that taxpayers’ money does not go to waste.

I come to my main area of concern, which is the powers being given to Cabinet Office Ministers and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. I know what it is like to make legislation thinking that I, as a good person, would only use it wisely, but I also know what it is like to be wrongly investigated by a public authority on the grounds of a misleading newspaper article. Looking at the investigatory powers bestowed in chapter 2 of the Bill, how could one not be worried to see a Minister being given powers, with little oversight, to compel a person to release whatever information they wish, in any format demanded, within 10 days, along with the information of anyone connected to them, on any grounds that the Minister deems “reasonable”—and to disclose that information to whomever they think necessary, with the sole right of appeal being only to that Minister? It could be impossible for someone to comply within the timeframe given, yet the Bill includes fines set at £300 a day for missing the deadline.

Of course the Government should go after fraudsters, but I worry that some of that power could be abused and that, in its current form, it may breach laws on the state taking someone’s property without due process. I would be interested to hear if experts in the legal sector have been consulted on the legislation as drafted. Have Ministers engaged with the Law Society, the Bar Council or, for that matter, organisations like Liberty and Justice?

In the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office, it is right to pursue fraudsters with the full might of the law, but the ends cannot justify all means and the process must always be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I look forward to further discussions on the detail of the Bill, and I am sure that colleagues in the other place will be preparing for that, too.

In the meantime, we must not let the Bill distract from the elephant in the room. For every penny the Bill will save—welcome though that is—it will do nothing about the billions of pounds that will be racked up in sickness benefits under this Labour Government. It is staggering that they did not come into office with a plan. They have done nothing to halt the tide in the seven months they have been in office, and I hear that they have shelved some of the work we handed over. We have heard not a murmur about what they will actually do, just briefing after briefing to the papers. Why not bring an actual plan to Parliament rather than talking to the papers? I suspect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might agree with me on that point.

We had a plan—where is theirs? Every day the Government scramble about without a plan costs taxpayers millions. Fraud and error in the system is a problem, and I am pleased to pledge the Opposition’s support for tackling them, but let us not use this Bill as a distraction from the big issue. We all agree that the welfare system needs reform. Let us end the briefings and have some action. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the next speaker, I just want to make it clear that after the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). \p Debbie Abrahams: It is absolutely right that fraud against the taxpayer, whoever it is by, is detected, that money is recovered and that future fraud is prevented. We saw fraud during covid when, for example, the abuse of the bounce back loan scheme cost the taxpayer nearly £5.5 billion. There was also covid-related contract fraud, such as the purchasing of unusable personal protective equipment, which was outrageous.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned, the National Audit Office identified six areas of fraud risk against the public sector, estimated to cost the taxpayer between £55 billion and £85 billion. They are grant fraud, which is the misappropriation or misuse of grant money; service user fraud, which we have focused on today; procurement and commercial fraud; income evasion; internal fraud and corruption; and regulatory fraud.

In its 2023-24 annual report and accounts, the DWP estimated that it made overpayments—including fraud and error—of £9.7 billion out of the £269 billion that it spent. That is 6.7% of related expenditure. However, it also made underpayments of £4.2 billion—that is 1.6% of related expenditure—up from £3.5 billion the previous year, because of underpayments of disability living allowance. Within that, there were different levels of fraud for different benefit types. For universal credit, the level of overpayment for the same period is 13.2%. That is down from a peak of 21% in early 2020, during  the covid pandemic, when some of the controls were suspended to speed up the application process. In fact, by value, two thirds of all overpayments are on universal credit—£6.5 billion out of £9.7 billion.

The DWP has tried to argue that the increase in fraud in the social security system reflects an increase in fraudulent behaviour in society. However, that does not explain why the overpayments are concentrated in universal credit accounts, or why, for example, there was a 10% reduction in fraud incidents reported in the crime survey for England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee agree. In its recent report on the DWP’s annual accounts, the PAC said that it was not convinced by the DWP’s claims, adding that that was a “dangerous mindset”. The Committee also produced the following context, which we should all consider:

“It is concerning that DWP is not providing a decent service to all its customers, who include some of the most vulnerable in society and some of those with the most complex needs. In particular, claimants of disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), are receiving an unacceptably poor service including processing times compared with those receiving Universal Credit (UC) and State Pension.”

I worry that many of those disabled claimants, made vulnerable by their circumstances, are receiving less than the DWP estimates that they are entitled to. I believe that there is a genuine commitment from Ministers to change the DWP’s culture and build trust with its service users, but the Bill will be seen by many as more evidence not to trust the DWP and not to engage. I am not alone in that; in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on safeguarding vulnerable claimants, Citizens Advice raised concerns that the failure to engage is the second largest category that the DWP classes as fraud, and that when the enhanced review team identifies a household as having potentially made a fraudulent claim, payments may be immediately suspended. Citizens Advice recommended that the detriment caused by such a suspension should not take place while the fraud review process is ongoing. Disability Rights UK, UK Finance and others have raised concerns about the lack of systemic safeguards in the Bill. To their credit, Ministers have accepted that and will look at it as a whole.

However, Ministers—particularly those from the last Conservative Government—will remember the housing benefit fraud allegations, in which more than 200,000 people were wrongly accused of and investigated for housing benefit fraud and error last June. An AI algorithm—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), just said we should be using more of—incorrectly identified people as potentially behaving fraudulently, and they were investigated. That is really serious. What level of investigation of innocent people do Ministers consider acceptable?

Policy in Practice has also raised concerns about underclaiming, barriers to accessing support, the lack of value for money of the DWP’s fraud detection, prevention and recovery system, which addresses less than 5% of the debt owed, and how the focus on fraudulent claims is

“spoiling the system for the 97% of ‘genuine’ benefit claims”,

fuelling beliefs about benefit cheats, and detracting from

“the millions of households that are rightfully and legitimately supported by a social safety net designed to be there for all of us when we need it.”

I have questions for the Ministers, some of which I have raised with them before. What risk assessments of the Bill have been undertaken? I know that there is an impact assessment and a human rights assessment. What are the risks, what mitigations have been put in place, and will the Government publish them? How are safeguarding concerns, including the Caldicott principles and the responsibilities of the Caldicott guardian—which the DWP has, to its credit, now put in place—addressed in the Bill? This Bill is too important for us to mess it up and for innocent people to become the victims. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for laying out very concisely some of the challenges in ensuring that the Bill does the right thing without going too far and breaking the things that people want fixed.

Clearly, defrauding the benefits system is wrong. One need only reflect on the level of disinvestment in many of our public services by the previous Government to note how that can bleed the system dry. I reflect on my own Torbay constituency, where the hospital tower block has scaffolding around it not because it is under repair, but to prevent bits of concrete from falling and killing people. I reflect on the lack of investment in our schools; the challenges with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete mean that the necessary capital programme will not happen for the next six years. I reflect on the lack of investment in our police services, which means that the number of sworn officers has massively reduced. Those are serious issues that affect us following the lack of investment under the previous Government.

The Conservative Government were asleep at the wheel during the covid pandemic, as the Secretary of State alluded to in clear terms. Businesspeople in Torbay told me that they felt Rishi Sunak was— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we refer to Members not by name but by constituency. I think he was referring to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. \p Steve Darling: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those businesspeople felt that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was filling carrier bags full of £50 notes and placing them around towns, expecting people just to pick them up, so low were the safeguards for a number of the covid support schemes.

I will move on to an item that has already been covered by a number of colleagues: the carers scandal. More than 136,000 people—equivalent to the population of West Bromwich—have been left with liabilities of £250 million that they are extremely worried about. The Government have quite rightly commissioned a review, but it is due to report not in the near future but next summer. I challenge the Minister: why not wait for that review’s findings before we push hard on these proposals, so that we can ensure that lessons are learned? We want fraud to be tackled, but we want it done in the right way. There have been just seven working days between this  Bill’s First Reading and its Second Reading. Large tracts of the safeguards and the rails around it are out for consultation as we speak, which we need if we are to understand what safeguards there will be to protect our communities.

Colleagues have already mentioned AI, and they are right to have done so, because there are real concerns about a lack of transparency—[Interruption.] Sorry, Jennie is joining in; she is having a dream about rabbits. As Liberal Democrats have already highlighted, we do not know what safeguards there will be around the use of AI. How can we back the Bill until we know what safeguards will exist? I would like to reflect on how the Bill can contain those appropriate safeguards. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth highlighted, the DWP is a broken Department. \p Robin Swann: Bearing in mind the money that has been claimed back from unpaid carers and our concerns about the DWP, does the hon. Member agree that this legislation would see more unpaid carers or their like come under far harder and harsher penalties? \p Steve Darling: I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention; he has highlighted a serious issue, and he is spot on. One has only to reflect on the significant backlog, with 90,000 people waiting for their pension to be reviewed as part of the winter fuel allowance issues—that is a massive backlog.

Access to Work, which is meant to support people with disabilities into work, is sadly another broken system. Quite often, those wishing to receive support find that job offers are withdrawn because their work package has not been pulled together in time. An academic survey has highlighted that over three years, sadly, almost 600 people committed suicide around the management of their support from the DWP. I suggest to the Secretary of State that, while one understands the aspirations of this Bill, it is far too much of a Big Brother Bill. It is far too much of a snoopers charter, and I suggest to the Government that they withdraw it. \p Oliver Ryan: 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. \p Peter Bedford: I would like to echo many of the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). Like her, I am a conditional supporter of the Bill. While I welcome its intent, I would like to raise a few questions regarding its implementation and its true impact on reducing fraud and error in the system.

Conservative Members understand three core principles: the importance of promoting personal responsibility, the importance of law and order, and of course, the importance of reducing the burden of an overreaching state and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent efficiently. I am therefore pleased that by introducing this legislation, the Secretary of State appears to have accepted the long-standing arguments made by Conservative Members. The Bill, much like the previous Government’s policy paper, is both necessary and overdue. It is a scandal that fraud and error in the DWP benefits system has reached such levels. Since the pandemic, the UK taxpayer has overpaid £8 billion due to a lack of proper provision for the DWP to thoroughly investigate cases of fraud and error.

This Bill maintains the focus of the previous Government’s policy paper on fighting fraud in the system. Under the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the DWP saw a 10% drop in fraud and error in the system, which led to savings of over £2 billion between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through the Department recruiting over 2,000 review agents and hiring 1,400 counter-fraud professionals. Unfortunately, due to time constraints at the end of the last parliamentary Session, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry out the modernisation of information-gathering powers or to broaden the scope of cases that could lead to civil penalties. I have no doubt that, had those Conservative policies been fully implemented, fraud and error levels would be lower than they are now.

Turning to the Bill, although I support its principles, I seek clarification from the Secretary of State on several key points. First, can the Secretary of State guarantee  that this Bill will not distract her and the Department from much-needed reforms to benefit conditionality, including work on health assessments and increasing incentives for people to find work? \p Lewis Cocking: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and I support what he is saying. We must get benefit fraud down and I support some of the measures in the Bill. On the point he has just raised, does he agree that this is only one side of the coin in dealing with benefits in this country? Of course, we must do everything we can to get benefit fraud down, but the other side of the coin is encouraging people to go back to work, because the best form of welfare is having a well-paid job. \p Peter Bedford: I absolutely agree with all the sentiments my hon. Friend has expressed. Getting a job is the best route out of poverty, and it is the best route to ensuring that we have a more socially mobile society.

Secondly, my instinctive belief in personal liberty means that I believe provisions allowing access to individual bank accounts must be handled with caution. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that such measures will be used only as a last resort, and that the independent person appointed by the Cabinet Office will be given full oversight and will report transparently on the use of these powers?

Thirdly, the Bill proposes the restriction of driving licences for those committing fraud against the DWP, but what alternative deterrents does the Secretary of State propose for those who do not drive? His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service already have these powers. I would like to see the independent person assess whether these measures are as impactful at the DWP.

Fourthly, Gareth Davies, the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, wrote last year that the forecast

“shows that DWP no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before…the COVID-19 pandemic”.

In response, the DWP explained that this was because there has been an “increasing propensity” for deceit across British society. I do hope that the Secretary of State will push back against this defeatist culture in the DWP and that my constituents in Mid Leicestershire do not continue to foot an astronomical bill for people committing fraud in the Department.

Finally, to gauge the correct path when dealing with fraud and error in the system, will the independent person conduct a review to determine whether the provisions in this Bill are just as effective as the Conservative policies of the previous Government?

In conclusion, as a Conservative, I support the intent of this Bill. It is shocking that fraud and error are at current levels. However, I urge the Secretary of State to work collaboratively with Members across the House to ensure that individual freedoms are respected, that the Bill does not distract from wider welfare reforms and that its measures deliver a long-term reduction in the welfare bill. \p Gill German: This Bill is crucial for delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money. As the Secretary of State has rightly stated, we must be

“turning off the tap to criminals who cheat the system and steal law-abiding taxpayers’ money.”

In Wales alone, the national fraud initiative found £7.1 million of fraud and payment errors in 2022-23, up by £0.6 million since the previous year. Figures such as this show just how much a blight on the economy fraud and error continue to be. I have heard at first hand from constituents about instances of benefit fraud that they are well aware of, such as individuals using past addresses to make claims to which they are not entitled. They know that this is not right, and they expect us to take action. It is also essential that we crack down on organised crime gangs and streamline the process through which DWP investigators can act to bring these serious offenders to justice more swiftly.

I welcome this Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every £1 lost to fraudulent claims is £1 that could be spent on vital public services—services that my constituents in Clwyd North rely on to strengthen our communities and improve lives. However, it is crucial that we make a clear distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error. Errors leading to overpayments may be the result not of deliberate wrongdoing, but of the inherent complexity of the social security system itself. Many of my constituents have shared their struggles with the complexity of applying for benefits, and knowing what to apply for and how. This causes significant stress, and it exemplifies the risks of penalising individuals who may simply have been unable to navigate the system, further entrenching the fear of making a mistake. The Bill must therefore go hand in hand with reforms to make this navigation far more straightforward.

A YouGov survey for Turn2us in 2024 found that 77% of respondents believed they would struggle when they needed to claim benefits if their circumstances changed. This highlights the real challenges that people face in navigating a system that is often confusing and difficult to understand. The Government must ensure that their powers to recover overpayments differentiate between fraudulent criminal activity and genuine mistakes. Without this distinction, there is a risk of penalising individuals who have simply struggled to navigate the system, and those people may already be in vulnerable situations.

Getting this Bill right, however, will mean that £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money over five years will be saved. That money can be invested in the services that people in my constituency and across the country rely on, from public transport to local infrastructure. With fraud and error costing nearly £10 billion a year, we must act decisively to drive down this fraud and error and protect public funds. At a time when families are struggling and public services are under pressure, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent where it is truly needed is not just responsible, but essential.

This Bill must tackle fraud and error in a way that is fair and proportionate and does not punish those who have made an honest mistake. I know that the Government have worked hard to include measures that will ensure  that these critical distinctions are made as the Bill progresses. However, it is crucial that we do not shy away from coming down on this issue, and that we ensure constituents see their hard-earned contributions going directly to the services that strengthen our communities. \p Siân Berry: This Bill is, at heart, Conservative legislation left over from the most dark corner of the last Administration, and I have no qualms about opposing it. I will speak against giving it a Second Reading and, alongside my fellow Green Members, will vote against it later.

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, this Bill is instead based on blame and suspicion of people in need of help. It has a focus on fraud when a far bigger issue is unclaimed and under-claimed benefits due to a lack of awareness, complexity in the system and stigma. The people losing out are not helped by this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), set out the risk of damaging trust in and engagement with the DWP. We also have the risk of reigniting damaging and unfair stereotypes from some people involved in wider debates on these issues on social media, in newspapers and in broadcast media.

All in all, this Bill is deeply concerning and disappointing, and I had hoped better of this Government on this issue. I sincerely hope that Ministers will go back to the drawing board and come up with a new, fair and humane policy for dealing with what is a very small proportion of fraud in our benefit system.

I have had so much correspondence on this from constituents who are very concerned about the Bill’s sweeping powers to invade their privacy and treat them as suspects, not citizens. I am talking about pensioners who need pension credit, people who are permanently disabled and whose entitlement to employment and support allowance is clear and settled, people who are precariously underemployed or unemployed who need universal credit, family carers, and people who are simply on low wages and cannot make ends meet. These are citizens, not suspects.

The clauses about what appear to be routine and regular Government access to information from bank accounts for eligibility verification—not linked to serious crime—most concern me. I am also opposed to the clauses that increase powers of search and access to homes for more serious matters, and those that would remove driving licences from people who are having difficulty paying back to the DWP overpaid money due to what may simply be human error at a difficult time in their lives, not fraud at all.

I therefore suggest that the Government come back to this House with the parts relating to covid fraud and to contractors and businesses, and maybe add something on the much bigger problem of tax fraud. On the rest, I suggest that they start again with a process of genuine listening and co-production, with those who claim social security, about appropriate, fair, respectful and secure ways of ensuring that people in need of support can receive what they are entitled to, and to protect in a proportionate way against those who may seek to defraud the Government or local authorities.

This process would fit together very well with the recent proposal from the charity Mind in response to other upcoming changes to benefit processes, which asks for a new approach to the benefits system and a commission led by disabled people to redesign benefit assessments. Mind says that this kind of process would help to rebuild trust between disabled people and the DWP. I agree, and my personal view is that this Bill will do the absolute opposite.

In summary, I believe that this Bill should go no further, and I and my Green colleagues will be voting accordingly today, to stand up for our constituents’ rights and dignity and for social security based not on intrusion and suspicion, but on support. \p Jon Trickett: I wish to make a few points. First, it would have been impossible not to note the zeal of the Secretary of State when she was banging on the Dispatch Box and talking about fraud and loss to the taxpayer, and she is right to do that. We, on this side of the House at least, believe in public expenditure, and therefore there is a duty on us to ensure that every single penny is spent in an appropriate manner. So where it is wasted or stolen or fraud is going on, we should bear down on it.

However, although the Secretary of State started off with that zeal and passion in talking about the gangs and others, she talked most about benefit claimants. Although the Bill sets up powers for the fraud authority, it deals largely with the question of fraud in the benefit system. But the title of the Bill mentions both fraud and error, and not enough time has been spent in this debate on the nature of error, which is far bigger than can be easily acknowledged.

I looked at the figures for PIP. Between 2019 and 2024 some one in four cases for alleged fraud by PIP recipients were dropped before reaching appeal, indicating the decision had lapsed because the Department had decided in favour of the appellant. That indicates the scale of the error that this Bill also wants to address. I am going to refer to a couple of cases in a moment or two, but at the core of this Bill is the creation, effectively, of a partnership between the state and the private banks, and the Bill does not make clear what that partnership will look like. I hope that we get some clarity on that before the Bill reaches Committee.

The banks themselves have said that they are very worried about this Bill, because they have a statutory duty, imposed by this House, to make sure that they deal properly with vulnerable clients. The banks have said there is a contradiction between the contents of this Bill and the obligations that fall on them and their duty to treat people who are vulnerable in a proper way. I want to reflect on that briefly.

Let me give the House a case from my own constituency that is symptomatic of a wider problem. A couple were referred to my office. They both had learning difficulties, both were illiterate and innumerate, and they found it impossible on their own to fill in the dozens and dozens of questions which the forms require people to fill in to get access to the benefits. So they were helped to put the form together by people employed to look after such people. The DWP then decided, years later, that it had made an error and had overpaid the couple by a large amount.  This error came to light as a result of a review of some kind in the Department. So here is a very poor and vulnerable couple who were unable to fill in the form on their own and who had been helped by professionals, and what did the state do? It sent them a bill for £20,000.

All Members will have a great deal of empathy—they would not be in this job otherwise—so we can imagine the state that couple were in when they received a bill from the state to repay £20,000. It was discovered after they came to my office that they had in fact filled in all the forms correctly; this was a computer error caused by someone failing to key in some of the information that had been provided to the DWP. Neither the council which was helping them nor their support workers spotted the fact they were being overpaid; nobody spotted it, so this went on for a number of years and the sum reached £20,000. A deeply vulnerable couple were left in that situation.

Eventually they encountered a local councillor in my constituency who referred them to me. We went through the whole thing and managed to make an appeal on their behalf. But this Bill gives people only 28 days once they have received an order to pay. It took us longer than 28 days to resolve this once it had got into my office. I just say to the Secretary of State that 28 days is not long enough in these complicated cases for people to produce the evidence to show they are a victim of error rather than they have committed a fraud. There was a presumption by the state that they had committed a fraud of £20,000, totally incorrectly, it turned out.

I worry that the Bill will put people like my constituents, and I imagine constituents of every Member in this House, in the same position. My constituents were fortunate to find an MP, but many people in that situation would not know how to find their way through the system.

That raises the question I have referred to about the banks. The banks have a statutory duty to protect vulnerable customers. How will they exercise that duty when they are being required to provide information to the DWP about the financial activities of various individuals banking with them?

On the subject of vulnerability, Disability Rights UK tells us that one third of all claimants of legacy benefits have mental health problems. I imagine that most of those people would be regarded as vulnerable by the banks and by every humane person in this House. One therefore wonders just exactly how we will reconcile the statutory duty on the banks with what they are required to do in relation to this Bill.

We are giving powers to this fraud authority. I personally am in favour of tackling fraud, as I have said—I am a Yorkshireman, and I do not like spending money. I do not like money being spent wastefully by the state either, and when I was the leader of Leeds city council, everyone knew I was strong on waste.

Finally on vulnerability, have the Government commissioned and received an equality impact assessment? If they have, can that be placed in the Commons Library, because the Bill will clearly have an impact on people who are extremely vulnerable? I think something somewhere in the Department will refer to that impact assessment.

I will make a couple of final points. It is suggested that the Bill will save £300 million a year by tackling benefit fraud. That is a large amount of money, but we can compare it with the £10 billion of fraud on personal protective equipment provided during covid, the £16 billion lost to the taxpayer in fraudulent covid schemes, the £5.5 billion a year of tax evasion, or the £6 billion of other illegal activities against HMRC. The £300 million is important, but it is not the largest amount of fraud that is taking place. The fraud authority is getting new powers and will be staffed up. How will it choose among the disproportionate amounts by which the state is being defrauded by various different agencies, by private individuals and, frankly, by some gangsters, too? Will the staffing be allocated according to the prejudices of politicians—whichever politicians are then in charge—or will it be allocated proportionately to the loss to the taxpayer incurred through different forms of fraud?

My final point is on the Information Commissioner. The Secretary of State suddenly announced that she received a letter today—it would be interesting to read it—but the Information Commissioner had been suggesting that the powers were disproportionate. We need to see the letter, and hopefully it will go into the Library or somewhere.

Clause 74, which empowers schedule 3 to the Bill, goes right to the kernel of the problems with this Bill, which could not be clearer. I am worried that it is not apparent how the intervention of banks will be invoked. Schedule 3 allows the banks to be invoked and then for action to take place. Will the bank account of every single citizen in the UK be looked at? That is the view of some campaign groups in society. If so, that is a massive incursion into the liberty that the British people hold dear. If not, how will the banks be asked to identify particular individuals? What process will be gone through? That is not clear, and the Bill does not explain it. I have read clause 74 two or three times, as have many other people.

Finally, can we be assured—not necessarily now, but as the Bill progresses through its various stages—exactly how that right of appeal will work? I have just referred to the 28-day cut-off, but will the Secretary of State look again at that? It seems to me that it is slightly too tight. \p David Chadwick: It is an honour to follow such an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). As a Welsh Liberal Democrat, I find myself concerned with the civil liberties aspects of this Bill, particularly the influence and power it gives to the big banks. I spent seven years working in data privacy as a data protection consultant, and reading this Bill created more questions than it answered. I worked on datasets involving different businesses, Governments and organisations from across the world. In particular, I want to speak to the points around the banks, because as we speak, customers from Lloyds and Halifax cannot access their bank accounts because of an outage. We should be concerned about making banks the judge, juries and executioners of social policy, particularly with something as important as welfare policy.

The UK has strong data protection laws that have been carefully negotiated over time and inherited from the European Union, and this Bill threatens to erode  some of those protections and implicates treaties that we have already signed, such as the data adequacy agreement we have with the European Union. If the EU was to turn around and say that it was unhappy with the Government’s decision to monitor their subjects and citizens in this way, that would create many more problems for organisations across the UK. Citizens should have the right to object to automated decision making, and I struggle to see how asking banks to scan their datasets for potential fraud could not be regarded as decision making. Let us give citizens the right to be able to object to these decisions being made about them. If we do not, we might be violating the data privacy agreements that are already in place.

What do the Government expect the process to look like, when they are asking the banks to provide this information? The Secretary of State said that the information would be provided in a digital format, but what will that actually look like in practice? What could go wrong if, as has been mentioned, the banks are having to relay huge datasets to the Government and to the DWP in particular? That could create honeypots of data that might be easy for hackers to intercept and interfere with.

In data protection, if there is not data integrity, availability and confidentiality, essentially all of the agreements that exist with the data subject and the data processor can be said not to be valid. I therefore wonder what the Government see as the perfect framework for this data to be provided. Does it mean that the banks will have to export the names of everyone who has more than £16,000 in savings and send that to the Government to see whether they are in receipt of welfare payments?

One of the core principles of a free society is the right to privacy, yet in its current form, this Bill represents an intrusion by the state into the privacy of individual citizens. Under the Bill, the Government would be granted sweeping powers to access and monitor the personal financial records of citizens, even without any evidence of suspicious activity to justify such actions.

Many people are in receipt of welfare payments through no fault of their own, and this Bill could result in the mass surveillance of private financial information, potentially affecting 9.4 million citizens. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our justice system, yet the Bill would fundamentally alter that principle. Under the Bill, individuals could be presumed guilty until proven innocent, with their personal data shared, investigated and scrutinised without sufficient cause or due process. That sets a dangerous precedent, where the burden of proof falls on citizens, not the state. We have all seen the devastating impact of errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions on individuals. Such a system could lead to disastrous consequences, where it falsely flags someone as fraudulent due to simple administrative errors or unintentional mistakes. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth acknowledged that the banks had raised concerns about whether they are the right organisations to do this.

The Bill risks creating a two-tier society where certain groups are subjected to intrusive financial monitoring by the state while others are not, which would undermine the principles of equality and fairness that our society is built on. In the current climate where banks are closing branches left, right and centre—Lloyds bank has announced that it will close its branch in Pontardawe—the Government  should not be asking banks to act as judge, jury and executioner in social welfare policy while granting themselves access to people’s bank accounts but not requiring those banks to ensure that citizens have access to their bank accounts. That does not sit well with the liberal society that I want to live in, and I do not believe that my citizens want to live in such a society, either. I call on the Government to rethink their proposals and to assure us that the Bill will not undermine our data protection adequacy agreement with the European Union. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: We have heard lots of statistics and detailed policy questions, but I want to start by sharing two stories. The first is of Antonia Foods in Wood Green, north London. From the outside, it looked like a normal neighbourhood corner shop selling fruit, veg and groceries, but from its back room Galina Nikolova and Gyunesh Ali ran a vast fraud operation, making use of transnational networks to file hundreds of illegal UC claims. By the time they were caught, they had defrauded the DWP of over £50 million. When the police finally raided their addresses, they found cases stuffed with cash. Nikolova and Ali received prison sentences, as did many of their associates, but the reality is that most of the money they claimed had long since disappeared, likely spirited out of the country. They had successfully stolen from us all.

The second story is of Yvonne, a disabled woman who was paid thousands of pounds more in benefits than she was entitled to over a number of years as a result of an innocent mistake and is now struggling to make ends meet as the DWP deducts overpayments from her current entitlement. Both those stories illustrate why we so desperately need the Bill.

The extent to which fraud against the public purse spread under the last Government is breathtaking. The proportions are simply staggering. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, public sector losses amounted to £55 billion last year—as much as the defence budget, and three times what we spend on police in England and Wales. That loss costs every man, woman and child £800 a year and is the equivalent of a third of the entire national VAT take.

This is not a victimless crime or some technical infringement. It robs every family in Britain, erodes our public services and takes money that could be used to help those most in need, depriving the most vulnerable of support. My constituents in Hendon and people across the country rightly expect it to be tackled. This is a crime that feeds on the most disadvantaged and weakens not only public services but the public’s faith in those services and their fairness. I say gently to those who have criticised the Bill that there is nothing progressive and nothing compassionate about allowing fraud to fester. It is a scourge that must be tackled. It is a scourge that grew out of control and was professionalised under the last Government.

Perhaps no area illustrates the challenge that we face, how it evolved and the last Government’s catastrophic failure to kerb fraud better than benefits. The DWP’s net bill for fraud and error, even after deducting underpayments, is £8.6 billion. That is £272 a second, £16,300 a minute and almost £1 million an hour. In the time that it will take for us to have the debate, the DWP will have lost more than £3 million. The bill for fraud and error is  roughly the same as the Department’s entire programme budget. The DWP loses as much to fraud and error as it spends on every active programme it has to help the unemployed, the long term-sick, those with disabilities and the elderly. The picture is shocking, and it got much worse under the Conservative party.

The headline figures for fraud and error excluding underpayment tripled in cash terms between 2010 and 2024 from £3.3 billion to £9.7 billion. As bad as those figures are, they actually understate how badly things deteriorated under the Conservatives. Claimant error rose only slightly in cash terms, while official error remained flat. In contrast, fraud rose a stunning sevenfold in cash terms and more than fourfold as a proportion of the total benefits budget. That was not some act of God; it was the result of serial failures by the Conservatives, who failed to understand that fraud was evolving and failed to modernise the DWP’s powers to allow it to keep up in the arms race with the fraudsters. They also made truly terrible policy and design choices that actively fuelled the fraud crisis.

That can be seen nowhere better than in how the Conservatives set up universal credit. Because of their failures in properly establishing and policing its gateway, it became a magnet for fraud. Universal credit accounts for just 22% of benefit spending but contributes over 76% of all benefits fraud. Almost £1 in every £9 claimed through UC in the Conservatives’ last year in power was claimed fraudulently, compared with just £1 in £25 for housing benefit, £1 in £300 for PIP and just £1 in £1,000 for pensions.

The reality is that the Conservatives failed to take the threat of fraud seriously and failed to understand how it was being professionalised and industrialised, as my earlier story showed. They left us all to pick up the bill. They say that they acted, but the truth is they did nothing for years. Even when they finally got their act together at the end of their term in office, it was too little, too late. Once again, we are having to step in to clear up their mess. They owe everyone in the House and everyone in the country an apology. It is striking that in all their bluster during the debate, we have not heard the only word that they should be uttering: sorry.

Fraud exploded on the Conservatives’ watch because of their failings, but the pattern of fraud also tells us much about why the powers outlined in the Bill are so desperately needed. The DWP’s own statistics show that of the £7.4 billion lost to fraud last year, about £1 billion was lost to people who held too much capital to be eligible, £1.3 billion was lost to those who had failed to report their self-employment earnings, and a further £1.3 billion was lost to those who had failed to provide sufficient evidence. A further £250 million was lost to those who were abroad. Those frauds could have been caught with better data and better investigatory powers. It would have been possible for banks to spot people with too much capital to claim, or those with considerable earnings, yet today, because of the last Government’s failure to update their legislation, the DWP cannot compel information digitally.

Virtually all banking is now done online, and yet while fraud is propagated through digital channels and moving at lightning speed, the DWP is still forced to rely on analogue tools. In other fields, we already integrate  information and get institutions to work together to prevent fraud. Banks regularly scan patterns that indicate fraud; benefits should be no different. We need digital tools and access to digital data to fight fraud. As with tax, investigators should have the powers they need to recover funds from those who are no longer on benefits. That is why the powers that the Secretary of State is proposing to take are so important as they will allow us to better identify those committing fraud and take more effective recovery action to get taxpayers’ money back.

That brings me back to my second story. Along with the measures that the Chancellor brought forward in the Budget, these measures will help us protect legitimate claimants by helping to pick up overpayments earlier. Last year, 480,000 people had deductions averaging £500 taken from their universal credit payments because of overpayments. Underpayments can be a source of huge anxiety and hardship. Preventing them and catching them earlier will help protect the most vulnerable claimants. That will be possible only because of the better data and the better processes that the Bill will help support.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), some have voiced concerns about whether the powers proposed in the Bill will impinge on people’s rights. I am strongly reassured by the powerful raft of safeguards that the Secretary of State has included in the Bill. Those safeguards mean that new debt recovery powers will be focused not on those on benefits, but rather on those who are neither on benefits or PAYE, and the DWP will not have access to people’s bank accounts, contrary to what some have implied during the debate. Those safeguards will include independent oversight and options for appeal. I am pleased to hear that, on top of that, the ICO believes that the safeguards address the concerns that it had with the Conservative party’s proposals.

This is a fair and balanced package, which modernises our approach and gives us the digital tools to fight a digital scourge, and the enforcement powers to take on organised crime while protecting the vulnerable. This Government and this ministerial team are modernising our system to protect public money, help the vulnerable and, critically, get Britain working. I am proud to support the Bill. \p Kirsty Blackman: I want to comment on a number of speeches that have been made. As the Scottish National party tabled a reasoned amendment, which unfortunately did not get selected, it will not surprise anyone that we have a number of significant problems with the Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill relates to recovering the covid moneys and the services and goods that the Government received that were substandard, for which organisations need to pay the Government back. Since its scope does not extend to Scotland, I will not add many comments, except to note that I have a long track record of bringing up covid fraud, particularly PPE frauds, in this Chamber. I will support the Government’s work to recoup the money that was fraudulently taken in Government contracts that did not deliver.

I oppose the DWP elements of the Bill, which are not what social security should be about. As my friend, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), said,  the social security system should be built on dignity and respect. Very few Members have said that we should have a social security system that works. Members have talked about tightening up eligibility criteria. Last week, people talked about the number of scroungers that there are—people not in work who are claiming social security benefits—and how desperately we must get them back to work. People should have opportunities, but it is also important that we have a social security system that catches people and supports them when they are not able to access those opportunities, because they are struggling with their physical or mental health or have learning difficulties. We need a social security system that works.

I have asked the Minister on a couple of occasions about co-production, which an hon. Member also mentioned. Co-production is needed when it comes to changes to disability benefits. If the Government are to reduce the amount of money being paid out for disability and sickness benefits, they must work hand in hand with disabled people. They must not just say, “We are going to reduce it by this amount.” They need to sit round the table with disabled people to have those conversations and to make clear what changes they want.

In Scotland, we have reformed the previous PIP system to create the adult disability payment and child disability payment. I used to get a number of emails and people walking through my door who were terrified about their upcoming PIP assessment—having to fill in those forms again, and sit and write a long list of the normal things that their child cannot do, on an annual basis. We have changed that in Scotland. We do not have regular assessments. If someone has a longer-term condition, they do not have to go through that awful situation on an annual basis. The Government need to focus on dignity, respect and co-production. That should be way ahead of conversations around fraud.

It is important that the social security system, the procurement system and the tax system do not propagate fraud. As has been mentioned a number of times by Members from across the Chamber, the tax system creates a huge amount more fraud and a huge amount more could be recouped from that than from the social security system.

I have major concerns about how the Government are approaching the issue. Why are they introducing this Bill before the child poverty strategy? Why is this more of a priority than cancelling the two-child cap and taking kids out of poverty? Why are the Government talking about nearly £10 billion a year owed to the DWP? Just to be clear, that is not what they intend to recoup. According to the impact assessment, at least 30% will be written off, so £10 billion is a misleading figure. It might be the total amount of fraud and error, but it is not what the Government expect to get back. It does not take into account that they will spend £420 million over the next few years just to increase the number of staff or the costs of the eligibility criteria. It is also not a net figure—it is just the headline figure right now. All the work being done on the legislation is to recoup a fairly insignificant amount of money, but it will put people through absolute hell.

As has been said, the Bill will treat people as guilty rather than begin from the point of view that they are innocent. Potentially, it will put every person applying for benefits through an eligibility check through their bank.  It will put them under surveillance in a way that is not compatible with the human rights that we should all expect. Let us remember that we are talking about people who, in some cases, are incredibly vulnerable, and may have their driving licence taken away.

The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about two of his constituents who found themselves in a difficult situation and who did not have a huge amount of literacy. It is possible that one of those people could have had a driving licence. For disabled people, a car can be an lifeline—the most important thing. For people with mental health problems, opening letters can be really difficult. People might not engage with the DWP through no fault of their own, but because they are not getting the mental health support that they need.

That £10 billion or however much will be recouped will not fix mental health services to ensure that everyone is capable of getting up in the morning, having their breakfast, having a shower and opening the letters in scary, big writing that have come through the door. It will not ensure that people can engage in that system. It will not teach them to read and write—they may not be capable of that. I share the concerns of other Members that, for some individuals, the powers of recouping and of revoking a driving licence are entirely inappropriate. We have not had enough reassurances on that.

My concerns about the Information Commissioner are still extant. The Secretary of State said that she has had a letter from the Information Commissioner. I understand that it is probably not her fault, but I am really disappointed that we have not seen that letter in advance of today—[Interruption.] I am being told that it is being published. \p Andrew Western: It is on the ICO website. \p Kirsty Blackman: Unfortunately, I have not seen it because I was not aware of its publication until the Secretary of State stood on her feet. It would have been helpful for Members to have been given that information beforehand, so that we could have read the Information Commissioner’s comments in advance of Second Reading, given a number of us have mentioned the significant concerns of the Information Commissioner in relation to the previous Bill.

The Secretary of State said that the Bill is tough and fair. Another Member talked about tax and benefit fraud, and the issue with the DWP making overpayments. They suggested that this new system will ensure that overpayments are caught earlier. I suggest that that is a tad over-optimistic. The DWP makes mistakes and makes overpayments, and now we are giving it another place to make errors. The DWP can now see into people’s bank accounts and say, “You don’t meet the eligibility criteria, so you won’t be getting the social security payment.” Until we have built up much a higher level of trust, most people will assume that these powers will create more errors in the system, rather than reduce them.

Lastly, on a subject that I mentioned earlier, a massive number of disabled people have no trust in the social security system. They are massively concerned about the cuts coming down the line and concerned in particular that they will bear the brunt of those cuts, given the comments from so many politicians, using the word “scroungers” and talking about people fraudulently claiming benefits.

Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) very helpfully laid out the figures on every pound claimed fraudulently, which I genuinely thought was very helpful, disabled people feel that they are being lumped in with the entire group of people claiming fraudulently—whether they can or cannot work, whether they are being paid universal credit or PIP to assist them with their work, and whether they have a helpful employer or have not been able to find one.

People feel they are being demonised by politicians simply for claiming social security, which they are entitled to. Until that trust is rebuilt, making the decision to look at their bank accounts, as in these measures, is the absolute wrong decision. The Government need to do what they can to put dignity and respect at the heart of the social security system and rebuild people’s trust in it before they introduce these sweeping, disproportionate powers.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the fact that there are so many unclaimed benefits. Surely ensuring that people have the money they are entitled to, ensuring that they have enough to live on, reducing child poverty and ensuring that not one child grows up in poverty should be more of a priority for the Government than introducing eligibility criteria and demanding that banks provide financial information on social security claimants. \p Zarah Sultana: I will focus on the powers in the Bill that force banks to trawl through our private financial data, scanning for indicators of fraud and error—indicators that are not publicly disclosed —and flag those individuals to the Government. These powers will allow the Department for Work and Pensions to seize money directly from bank accounts without due process, suspend driving licences and even search properties and personal devices. They are not the hallmarks of a free and democratic society but the tools of an Orwellian surveillance state.

Let me be clear: we all agree that genuine fraudsters should be held to account, especially multimillionaire tax avoiders, organised criminal gangs and the dodgy companies that exploited covid funding. However, the Bill goes far beyond that. It will subject millions of innocent people—disabled individuals, carers, jobseekers, pensioners and parents—to unwarranted financial surveillance, treating them as suspects by default, simply because they receive state support. It is deeply unjust. The Government already have extensive powers to investigate suspected fraud; under existing legislation, they can access bank accounts where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, the Bill removes the need for suspicion altogether. Put simply, this is mass surveillance.

There are significant risks. We have already seen the devastating consequences of automated decision making in the Post Office Horizon scandal, where faulty software led to hundreds of wrongful prosecutions. The Bill risks repeating that injustice on an unprecedented scale, and we should not have to wait for an ITV drama to expose it in the future. The DWP has already made mistakes in accusing benefit claimants of debt. Last July, The Big Issue reported that a disabled woman had her disability  benefits stopped and was accused of owing the Government £28,000, which the DWP later admitted was its mistake, while a single mother was accused of a £12,000 debt when the DWP actually owed her money. Algorithm-driven financial surveillance will inevitably result in errors that will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society: the elderly, the disabled and those already struggling to make ends meet. Even a 1% error rate in the AI system used by banks could lead to thousands of benefit recipients being wrongly flagged, unfairly investigated and forced into lengthy appeals.

Moreover, the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that these measures would recover just £146 million annually, which is less than 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error. In contrast, £23 billion in benefits and support goes unclaimed each year, while £3 billion in claims is underpaid. Yet the Bill does absolutely nothing to address those injustices or to build a security system based on dignity and respect; instead, it targets those who can least afford to be wrongly flagged as fraudsters.

This legislation represents a rushed process with little scrutiny. At 116 pages long, the Bill was scheduled for Second Reading just seven working days after First Reading. It is an attempt to push through mass surveillance powers with minimal debate, bypassing the necessary checks and balances that should apply to any policy, especially one that affects millions of people’s fundamental rights. The powers are also legally questionable, with privacy experts warning they could breach article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Bill risks creating a two-tier justice system—one for the very wealthy, who will never face this kind of intrusion, and another for those on benefits, who will be subject to constant scrutiny, automated checks and the threat of their money being seized, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about so-called benefits cheats. It will therefore also distract attention away from the millions of households that are legitimately supported by a social security system that exists to support every single one of us when we need it.

Civil society groups including Amnesty International, Big Brother Watch, Disability Rights UK and Age UK have all condemned the powers, warning they will entrench discrimination against the poorest and the most vulnerable. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow the Government to turn our banks into agents of the state, spying on their customers and reporting back to Whitehall; we cannot allow the presumption of innocence to be eroded by a culture of suspicion and surveillance; and we cannot stand idly by while the most vulnerable in our communities bear the brunt of this overreach. This is not the change people voted for. I therefore urge the Government to remove clause 74 and schedule 3 from the Bill. \p Jim Allister: None of us, I hope, has any empathy with fraudsters. I trust that it is the united view of this House that fraud, wherever it occurs, should be pursued with rigour. However, that does not mean that a Bill that proclaims itself to have that purpose should be simply nodded through. The fine print of this Bill deserves as rigorous an examination as any other.

There are a number of areas in this Bill that I find concerning. I find the equivalence in investigative powers and the initiation of those powers between investigating fraud and investigating overpayment troubling. There is a huge difference between a person who enriches themselves through fraudulent activity and someone who is innocent, but is the recipient of an overpayment—not because of a mistake they have made, but because of a mistake the Department has made. That is a huge distinction morally, and in every other way. Yet it seems to me that the Bill makes an equivalence between the powers of investigation in that regard, which is something I find discomforting and unfair.

I also find some of the detail we find in the Bill surprising. As our law presently stands, a person can be regarded as and held to be a fraudster, in the eyes of the law, only if they have been convicted of fraud beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the hallowed and long-standing criminal standard that has to be reached before someone is convicted as a fraudster. But no longer is that the standard. Indeed, no longer is it for the courts to decide whether someone is a fraudster. Now, under clause 50, the Minister can decide whether someone is a fraudster, and not on the criminal standard but on the balance of probabilities. Clause 50 states:

“The Minister may impose a penalty on a person if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has carried out, or conspired to carry out, fraud”.

The Minister—not our courts, but the Minister—will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether someone is a fraudster. How could that be right? How could that be fair?

It gets worse, because when we read clause 50 with clause 52, we discover that the penalty is measured not by what the fraud was in every case, but by what the fraud might have been. So a person can be penalised on the balance of probabilities; not by a court, but by a Minister; and not for having obtained anything fraudulently, but for what they might have obtained had the fraud been perfected. I say to the House that is taking us far too far. That needs to be re-examined.

Then we come to clause 91. Under this astounding, disconnected provision, a person can be disqualified from driving if they have failed to pay back £1,000, whether they got it by fraud or, as I read it, they were overpaid it. They can lose their driving licence not because they have been convicted of fraud, but because clause 91(2) states that the schedule that will now be amended will make

“provision for a liable person to be disqualified”.

What is a “liable person”? We have to go to clause 11 to discover that a “liable person” is somebody on whom the Minister has served a recovery notice. If the Minister serves a recovery notice on you, that makes you a liable person under clause 91, and under clause 91, if you still have not paid back £1,000, you can lose your driving licence. Really? I do think that with this measure we have hugely run away with ourselves in terms of what is proportionate and appropriate.

There is much in this Bill in the way of overreach, which the Government need to re-examine. Yes, let us go after fraudsters. Yes, let us recover the money that they should never have had. But let us do it in a way that respects the traditions of our legal system and of the decency in our society, instead of the overreach of some aspects—not all—of the Bill.

The Bill does not apply to the area I come from, Northern Ireland, but inevitably, because parity controls the welfare payments that are made in Northern Ireland, there will eventually be some parallel, reflective legislation. That will be needed, but I want to say a word—I want the Minister to take it on board—about the Northern Ireland Executive. Welfare payments in Northern Ireland are demand-led. They are administered by the Department for Communities in the Northern Ireland Executive, but they are demand-led. Therefore, in that sense, they are not coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant.

It seems to me that there is a tendency within the Northern Ireland Executive to be less rigorous than they ought to be on fraud, because they are not recovering money that has been misused from the block grant; they are recovering money that has been misused from the Treasury. That, for some of them, shamefully, does seem to create a disincentive to pursuing fraud recovery with the vigour that they should. I say that on the basis of figures released in a number of Northern Ireland Assembly answers. They show that in the last five years there have been only between 200 to 300 fraud pursuit cases in Northern Ireland, touching on only £4.5 million. There is a lot more fraud in the benefits system in Northern Ireland than £4.5 million.

Yes, let us pursue fraud with vigour, but let the Secretary of State put some pressure on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that they are living up to their obligations to also save the Treasury the money that has been lost in fraud. \p Sally Jameson: The Bill sets out a clear agenda that this Government will be tough on fraud. It will ensure fairness for benefit claimants and offer confidence to the taxpayer. When it comes to taxpayers’ money, fraud and waste cannot and must not be tolerated. I am pleased that the Government are taking that approach, and I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill.

I was appalled, frankly, to learn that a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been lost to fraud and error since the pandemic. I think of my constituents in Doncaster Central, of how desperately our hospital needs refurbishing, of how many children live below the poverty line, and of how many of my constituents are stuck on NHS waiting lists. I am outraged at just how much money, which could have helped to solve those problems, was instead drained by fraudsters, sometimes on a large and organised scale, and by the careless errors of the previous Government. With these measures, this Government will protect claimants by preventing errors earlier, ensure that our benefits system works for those who claim benefits they so desperately need, and give taxpayers the right to see their hard-earned money spent well.

I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing the Department’s search and seizure powers in line with those of HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, and I am pleased to see the Department’s commitment to ensuring strong safeguards on those powers, including the appointment of an independent body to conduct independent inspections of the Department’s investigations. We must ensure that the tough measures we introduce to recoup taxpayers’ money are met with equally tough scrutiny and safeguards. I hope that will remain a priority as the Bill passes through the stages of this House.

I have no doubt that some Opposition Members will claim that they introduced measures to crack down on benefit fraud. Indeed, they did—eventually. At the very tail end of the last Parliament, they tagged measures on to the end of another Bill, which never passed. It has fallen to us, as it has in many other areas, to take the necessary action. Whether it is benefit fraud or fraudulent covid contracts, these are not victimless crimes. It is public services and our constituents who lose out. We need to get on with this job. We cannot afford to lose more public money, which our constituents pay for with their taxes and should feel the benefit of.

Tough measures, tough sanctions and tough safeguards are the key to ensuring that our welfare system is fair for its genuine claimants and robust enough to ensure that taxpayer money goes where it is supposed to go: to the people and the services that need it most. \p Jim Shannon: Let me, at the outset, make it clear for the record that I think it is important that the Government pursue fraud. I asked the Secretary of State about that this afternoon during DWP questions. There is a story in the newspaper today, and it may even have been in yesterday’s Sunday paper, about a gentleman who defrauded the system of about £800,000 and skipped off to, I think, Romania. There was no treaty whereby we could pursue him, but obviously the Government wish to ensure that all those moneys are recoverable. The point I am making is that there are clearly those who set out to defraud the system, and it is important for the Government to respond positively. I think they are doing that, but I have some concerns.

When we speak to constituents on the doorstep, none of them have an issue with people who need help from the state—who are ill, or out of work for other genuine reasons—but there is a definite feeling that people should not claim and work on the side, and I agree that we need to clamp down on those who are “doing the double”. That terminology may not be used very often, but its meaning is clear. The statistics suggest that there may well be an issue, although the scale referred to in Government documentation varies greatly. The National Audit Office puts the amount across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023-24 in the range between £5 billion and £30 billion. It is clear that we need to do something effective. Those who work hard and are barely making ends meet are crying out for fairness. However, I fear that we may open up powers that cannot be removed and that would turn us into a nanny state.

In my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I expressed concern about those who make genuine and honest mistakes. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to that, in his polished and qualified way. People fill in forms and think they are doing it correctly, but perhaps they make a mistake and tick the wrong box. It happens all the time. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) whether he had dealt with many such cases over the years. I have dealt with about 30, perhaps 40, every one of them involving a genuine mistake when someone unfortunately ticked the wrong box and had to repay the money. I am concerned about those who  are disabled, those who are anxious, those who are depressed, those who have emotional or mental issues. I do not want them to become the “low-hanging fruit” for Ministers and the Department to pursue, rather than pursuing those who are guilty of claiming benefits only just this side of £1 million, like the person I mentioned.

A girl in my office, a member of my staff, works full time on benefits, five days a week. Her diary is full from 9 am until 5 pm every day of the week. Disabled people come to my office, and they are the people whose cases are genuine. They are the people who have applied for benefits and are anxious and worried about the whole thing. I always say to them, and the girls in the office say it as well, “If you are going to get the benefit—and it is right that you do—put the facts on your application form, and the Department will make a decision.” Those are the people I fear for. They are the people I worry for. They are the people about whom I myself feel anxious on their behalf, worrying about what could happen to them.

When people apply for benefits genuinely, the DWP does sometimes make mistakes. Every one of the 30-odd people I mentioned earlier with whom I have been involved over the years was successful because there had been a genuine mistake. I have to say, “Guys, I respect this greatly, because I understand the principle of what you are trying to do, so you should never be in doubt about where I am coming from”—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have referred to “hon. Members” rather than “guys.”

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned people having their driving licences removed if they have not repaid £1,000 when it is money that, perhaps, they should not be in receipt of. However, if their driving licences are taken away when they have simply made a mistake, and they are penalised and deemed to be guilty, they cannot go to their jobs because they have no cars, and cannot do the work that would enable to pay the money back, that is overkill.

I also want to say something about bank accounts. Everything I do in this House comes from Strangford, and it will not surprise anyone that the examples I will give are Strangford-based. I say that to help all the other Members here. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother has been diagnosed with paranoid psychosis and was living in a tent when she realised that he had been turned out of his apartment and his benefits had fallen by the wayside. She took control, got him on benefits and found him a private rented apartment. Because he does not trust banks, which is part of his health issue, all that is done through her accounts. Without her, he would be unable to pay rent or do anything, as he does not trust Government and she handles it all. Will her bank accounts be open to Government scrutiny? Will she hand over care to the social worker who ceased contact because her brother would not engage, and signed him off as too difficult to work with? That is all part of the paranoid psychosis—the health problems, the disabilities, the emotional and mental issues that such people face. I think of these people. I will always speak up for the wee man and the wee woman who are penalised through a system that tries hard to achieve the goals that it sets itself, but unfortunately—again—falls by the wayside.

Who will take care of the situation if this man’s sister objects to Government rifling through her accounts when she works hard and pays more than her share  in tax? One hon. Gentleman—I cannot remember who it was—said that HMRC should be pursuing other moneys with the same zeal that they are showing in this case. What security will my constituent have to ensure that her privacy is not sacrificed because she is helping her brother? More importantly, how many others like her —friends and families of those suffering from mental ill health—will pull back because of that?

I ask the Minister for an assurance about such cases, and I think it important for each and every one of us who has a conscience—I am not saying that no one else has a conscience; perhaps I should say, those of us who have concerns on behalf of our constituents—to bear them in mind. A Government overreach for those who are caring for the mentally ill, and who already lead a life of stress owing to their caring duties, without recompense from the Government because they already work—could lead to more pressure from the state to fill the breach. I must respectfully say that I do not see how we have the capacity for this.

I never want to see a scenario in which genuinely disabled people are so concerned about the scope of Government regulation in respect of their moneys that they do not claim what they are entitled to. That would be terrible. The Government set a system—whether it is the personal independence payment, universal credit, disabled living allowance, pension credit or attendance allowance—and all those benefits are there for a purpose. When people come to me, I always say, “The Government have set this aside for you. It is yours if you qualify and the criteria are there.” I think of people who save for a holiday, or perhaps their partners work and take them on a holiday tailored to their needs; perhaps they will go to the hotel in Portrush, not far away, or perhaps they will take a plane to Jersey, with a wheelchair and an assistant to get them on and off the plane. I do not want such people penalised when their disability is such that they can only do that if there is someone with them. They may be afraid to go on that holiday because they fear being labelled a benefit cheat, while those who are doing the double, as it used to be known, should be unable to continue that life at the expense of the taxpayer. My question to the Minister is this: how do the Government intend to find the balance?

It is critical for us to get that balance right. I understand the urge to do this, and it is right to do it, but I do not want those who are justified in receiving a benefit to be penalised. I note that the Government believe they could reclaim some £54 million in 10 years. If that figure is right, this is worth pursuing, but how much will it cost to run over that period? How much will it cost the Government to chase all these moneys? How do we send a message to those who are concerned about their loss of freedom to a Government who can look into family bank accounts that this is a measure worth taking?

My final words to the Government are these: “Do. the job that you have set yourself, but make sure you do not chase the wee man and the wee woman”—the people whom I represent, the people whom the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) represents, the people whom we all represent on both sides of the House.” Those are the people I am speaking up for tonight, and I want to make sure that they are protected. \p John Martin McDonnell: I do not want to repeat what has been said by others, but I will share my perspective on the Bill. It is in two parts, and there is almost unanimity about the first part, which deals with how we tackle fraud carried out through contracts and so on. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for pointing out some of the elements of real concern in that part of the Bill, which, to be frank, I missed. The Bill has been published for only a week, and it has been difficult to go through it. I have been somewhat distracted by the Government trying to concrete over a quarter of my constituency with a third runway at Heathrow, and elements of the Bill need further examination. To be frank, I think it will face legal challenge in some form.

I cannot welcome the first half of the Bill enough, which deals with tackling overall fraud. I was the first MP to raise with the then Chancellor the corruption that was taking place with covid bounce back loans. I raised it a number of times in the House, and I wrote to him twice. I received a standard letter that was almost identical to the response I got from the banks, which said they were going through their usual investigatory process, and then we eventually discovered that fraudulent claims for bounce back loans amounted to at least £5 billion. I welcome the first half of the Bill, because we need to be ruthless on the corruption and fraud that takes place.

However, the second part of the Bill, particularly clause 74 and schedule 3, is where we are straining, to be frank. Some hon. Members have mentioned the context already. There is real fear out there among people who claim welfare benefits, particularly disabled people. It is a result of their being targeted, and of careless language in this place and elsewhere. That is then exaggerated even further by the media, and benefit claimants become targets.

I echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, because I have the same problem in my constituency. Sometimes it is about telling people to claim what they are entitled to, because they are terrified of the stigma around claiming benefits at the moment, particularly older people. The atmosphere that we now have is a climate of fear, and I am worried that this debate will add to that climate of fear.

The Secretary of State said that any proposal has to be proportionate, safe and fair, but there are real concerns about the proportionality of this Bill. As other Members have said, it is a mass surveillance exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I fear that once we start down the path of surveillance in this way, others will come back with proposals for where we can go further. As Members have said time and again, there is an issue with safety. How many lessons do we have to learn about the way that computer systems and the use of algorithms have destroyed people’s lives? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that the banks are gearing up, but they have expressed concern that the Bill is almost an exercise beyond their abilities. As a result, there will be errors, which will reinforce the climate of fear around benefits. \p Jim Shannon: I apologise for omitting this issue from my speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have decided to penalise those who  have been charged with alleged fraud? Does he feel that there should be a system in place so that they can appeal? \p John Martin McDonnell: That is why the code of practice is going to be interesting. The code of practice needs to be published as rapidly as possible to see what mechanisms will be available for us to protect our constituents.

I have one area of experience with regard to the flagging up of sums of money that raise concerns: in the debates that we had on tax avoidance, we talked about suspicious activity reports. There is a record of real faults and a high number of errors in that process. As a result, people have been not just penalised, but penalised unfairly and exposed unfairly. It is not that I am in any way a defender of tax avoidance or anything like that, but if we are to introduce a system, we need to make sure that it is secure and effective, and does not penalise people unfairly.

The Bill is supposed to be proportionate, safe and fair. The reason why people will feel that it is unfair is that it specifically targets people who are often in desperate need. If there was a group of people whose accounts we would want to monitor because there has been a history of fraud, and who have had to pay money back—some have gone to prison—it would be MPs. I was here during the expenses scandal. Following that experience, are we really not monitoring our accounts for undue payments and so on? Why is it always the poor who we target in this way?

As I said, I am really worried about the climate of fear, particularly among people with disabilities, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned. We know about 600 suicides that are related to DWP activity. We circulated John Pring’s book “The Department”, which looks at the DWP’s role in those deaths, to all MPs, and it was starkly obvious that it had made a significant contribution, if not caused them. I remember a case in Scotland in which a poet in Leith committed suicide but did not leave a suicide note; he just left a letter from the DWP beside him.

My view is that whatever steps we take in exercising the powers in the Bill, we have to be extremely careful. One of the things I want to raise—if I can crowbar it into this legislation through an amendment, I will—is that a number of us, on the basis of the work of Mo Stewart, who does research on poverty and welfare benefits, have said that we must give people assurances that they will be protected and that we will do everything we can to cause no harm, and certainly not cause any further suicides, but we must also learn the lessons of what has happened in the past.

One of Mo Stewart’s proposals is for an independent advisory panel for DWP-related deaths. We have exactly that system in place for deaths in custody. We have an advisory system at the moment for the DWP but, to be frank, it is not working. The minutes of the panel’s meetings are cursory, and it does not do detailed reports in the same way as the deaths in custody panel. If we are to reassure people out there that we really are looking after their interests, that is one small step that we could include in this legislation. I am not sure that we will be able to crowbar it into the title of the Bill, but I will do   my best and would welcome other Members’ creative drafting to help me. Such a measure would send out the right message. The Secretary of State has tried to do that tonight with her assurances about the processes, but I am not sure whether that will be enough, given the climate of fear that we now have.

What are the next steps? I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee for us all to get our head around the detail of the Bill. I hope that there will be more consultation; it would be better to delay Report to enable that. I also wish to raise the same issue as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry): we were given assurances that the proposals would be implemented by co-production rather than announced from above.

It would be an example of good governance if there were a process of proper consultation. After the Ellen Clifford case, in which the High Court ruled against the previous Government on their consultation, the spirit of the Government’s response was that there would then be proper consultation, hopefully on the principle of “Nothing about us without us”. Consultation on the detail of the Bill throughout its passage would be the best example that this Government could give of that process working productively so that we get it right and we do not endanger any more people, as unfortunately has happened in the past. \p John Milne: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that putting a stop to fraud of any kind is welcome, especially at a time when public money is scarce. However, many of my Horsham constituents have contacted me to say that the powers outlined in the Bill are very far-reaching and, if abused, could have hugely detrimental effects on benefit claimants through no fault of their own.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, the carer’s allowance repayment scandal shows exactly what can go wrong when the state has high-level powers over debt recovery. Due to departmental error, not the claimants’ error, there were more than 250,000 cases of overpayment to carers in the last five years of the Conservative Government. That is an enormous number. What would have happened to those carers, who are paid very little for the huge service to society that they provide, if the powers in the Bill had been in place during those five years? They would probably have faced forced withdrawals from their bank account, the possible removal of their driving licence or even forced entry to their home by the DWP.

The Bill will give increased powers to access private bank accounts. This requires careful consideration from a civil liberties perspective. However, the DWP already has the power to compel third parties to share data where criminal activity is suspected. The new powers appear to reduce the need for prior evidence and simply grant access at will. Given that access to banking information is estimated to recover just 1.4% of the Government’s annual loss to fraud and error, do these powers of forced withdrawal represent a proportionate action? Before introducing new powers, it might make more sense for the Government to increase the efficacy of existing requirements on third parties to report suspicious activity, and for HMRC to share banking data on an annual basis.

The Government have asserted that the Bill will save the public purse £1.5 billion, but in the absence of an impact statement, how do we know? If the DWP is to have the power to take people’s money, suspend driving licences and enter homes, we should at least be very confident that it is worth it. In particular, we need to be sure that the savings predicted do not come from the blameless victims of departmental error, as happened with the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal. It is of huge importance that fraud be reduced, but until we are sure that we have learned the lessons of the past, we run the risk of damaging people’s lives for insufficient benefit. We are at risk of making the same mistakes again, but with fewer checks and balances.

The sentiment of the Bill is welcome, but there are risks attached. I am concerned that it builds a narrative that assumes that the claimant is the guilty party, when it could be the Department that is at fault. I therefore call on the Government to apply all possible care before launching new regulations that, at present, would amount to a matter of trial and error. \p Paula Barker: I recognise that fraud exists across the public sector and that it is wholly right for any Government to track down the fraudsters, the criminal gangs and those who cheat the system at the bottom as well as the top—we have heard about the VIP fast lane—but I hold deep reservations about the unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form.

We have heard some very constructive contributions this evening from Members across the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is always accessible and has been willing to listen to my concerns and those of my many constituents who have got in touch to express their views. Although she has allayed some of my fears, I did let her know that I would raise my concerns in the Chamber today.

First, the Bill needs to make a greater distinction between fraud and error. We cannot accept a situation in which our constituents are being accused of fraud on the back of genuine personal errors. I know at first hand from my experience as a constituency MP that the Department is more than capable of making glaring errors of its own, and people suffer greatly as a result. The welfare system is not an easy one to navigate; people should be supported when problems arise, rather than there being a natural presumption towards guilt. Many organisations that have been in touch with hon. Members share this fear, so it is essential that the Government address the point head on.

Other aspects of the Bill sit very uneasy with me. The Government already have the powers, under existing legislation, to investigate those who are suspected of fraud. That raises the question why the Bill is needed. It feels like a hammer to crack a nut.

After the second world war, the Attlee Government set about establishing a welfare state as a safety net for those who were genuinely in need. The Attlee Government took responsibility for looking after the wellbeing of all their citizens from the cradle to the grave. Worryingly, there now seems to be a determination to transform the British welfare state into a system of mass surveillance.

I will be grateful if the Minister responds to the following points. First, although I acknowledge that the Secretary of State spoke about this at the Dispatch Box, what provisions are being made in respect of proper oversight of these proposed new powers? How would any financial institution navigate data protection conflicts between the Government and its customers? How would data security risks be mitigated?

During an iteration of the Bill introduced by the last Government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission called for it to be scrapped. A legal opinion from Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills found that the powers in the previous iteration were likely to breach UK article 8 privacy rights protected in the Human Rights Act. Can the Minister tell us what legal advice the Government have received on the proposals in the Bill?

I have serious concerns that assertions and decisions on individual cases, if automated, could lead to Horizon-style injustices if the necessary steps are not taken to put the right safeguards in place, alongside measures to guarantee some level of transparency and accountability when mistakes arise. We are looking at a hugely significant change to our welfare system, at a time when the Department is responsible for record underpayments. Surely that should be a Government priority, rather than further upheaval of a system that threatens to further stigmatise those who legitimately rely on the welfare state.

There are low levels of fraud in the benefits system. The latest Government figures put it at 2.8% of total benefit expenditure, which translates to overpayments due to fraud recorded at 3.7% in the financial year 2023-24. Although it is right and proper to look at ways to reduce that figure, politicians in this place have a responsibility to make it clear at every opportunity that any such move, especially one as far-reaching as this, is intended to target a small minority of criminals. The constituents I support often tell me that the services they interact with, and by extension the Department, tend to view them with suspicion and lack of empathy. The Bill must not be used to entrench such attitudes.

For the British public, whether they are in work or out of work, life is getting harder. Rampant inequality has broken our economic model, while the 1% continue to squeeze the rest. I very much hope that the Bill will not end up punishing the wrong people, making those inequalities even worse. I look forward to Government Front Benchers engaging with those who express legitimate concerns today and during the Bill’s parliamentary journey. I will not oppose its Second Reading, but I will work constructively with colleagues across the House to table amendments in Committee that alleviate my concerns and those of right hon. and hon. Members. \p Jo White: In Bassetlaw, most people work hard all their lives, pay their dues and want to live comfortably. They keep themselves to themselves, whether in Worksop, Harworth, Retford or the villages, but what unites them in anger is the known benefit fraudster who lives down the street. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the rage, the sense of injustice and grievance that benefit fraud is happening on their doorstep, and that nothing seems to be done about it.

With billions of pounds of public money lost last year, we welcome this Bill in Bassetlaw. At long last, it is the start of real action against the fraudsters and those milking the system, whether they are workshy or feeding the coffers of organised crime. This legislation will give the DWP new anti-fraud powers, for the first time since the Tony Blair years, bringing it into the digital age.

I welcome the new search and seizure powers, bringing the DWP into line with HMRC’s investigative powers—seizing luxury goods, bags of cash and mobile phones to use as evidence of fraud, and taking active control of investigations into the criminal gangs that are defrauding the taxpayer. If that means raids, let it crack on.

I welcome the new, stronger powers to pursue those who receive money that they are not entitled to. Where they refuse outright to repay, it is right that their driving licence should be removed. Banks and building societies flagging fraud, such as long-term trips abroad or wages going into an account while benefits are also being claimed, is also welcome.

Although the Government will at last be tough on fraud, the new powers will include strong safeguards to ensure that they are used appropriately, protecting the vulnerable and the sick. The message from today is that if you are living off the wages of fraud, we are coming to get you. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

That is why I back the Bill’s additional measure to pursue those who ripped us off during covid, including the previous Government’s greedy friends who grabbed the PPE contracts and the fake company owners who took the business loans. We will not allow time limitations to act as a barrier. We want our money back and the thieves jailed, and we want anyone who lined the pockets of their mates to feel the long arm of the law.

I cannot abide the thought of my constituents’ hard-earned money funding the luxury lifestyles of the fraudsters. Labour is the party of working people, and this Bill puts our values into action. This Bill is all about fraud. It is the start, not the end, of stamping out corruption, insider dealing and the defrauding of those who strive and save by working hard. This is the start of resetting broken Britain. \p Judith Cummins: I call Luke Charters. \p Luke Charters: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but I hope not least.

Before entering this place, I spent a lot of my career tackling fraud. One key trend in fraud is its increasing sophistication. Rather than the art of a local chancer, fraud is increasingly conducted by organised crime groups using elaborate mechanisms, deeply advanced technology and rapidly shifting modus operandi. That includes benefit fraud gangs. I am sorry to say this, but fraud in the benefit system has reached an industrial scale. Frankly, it is time the Government got a grip, which is why I welcome their swift action in introducing this Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote an excellent op-ed today highlighting this exact point. This is the money of many hard-working Brits, and it has  been stolen from right under their noses. The Tories presided over a system that allowed criminals to line their pockets at taxpayers’ expense. \p Paula Barker: My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and he talks about benefit fraud on an industrial scale. Does he really believe that just over 2.5% is an industrial scale? \p Luke Charters: As I will come to, it is about the advanced techniques that these fraud gangs are using. It is industrial-level criminal activity.

Last year, £7 billion was cheated out of taxpayers’ pockets, and we have been left to clean it up. If we had that cash, we could have funded extra police officers or vital repairs to some of our hospitals. Frankly, it would also have made it easier to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party, wherever its Members are.

I now turn to a few concrete examples of why this Bill matters. First, on the economics, the Bill is expected to save £1.5 billion over the next few years. These are not insignificant sums of money. It is important to stress that the public purse is not an endless pot, and the contributions of millions of working people across the country, including many of my constituents in York Outer, help to fund it. They want to see taxpayers’ money being spent wisely. Stealing benefits is not just fraud; it is a slap in the face to the hard-working taxpayers who fund our public services. This Bill changes that.

The Bill is not just about keeping more taxpayers’ cash in the Treasury. As Brits, we embody the values of kindness, decency and fairness. Although we are rightly outraged about criminals circumventing our system, we all want a reliable welfare state for the people who truly need it. Every £1 stolen by benefit fraud gangs is £1 less for a low-income single parent looking for a job on universal credit, £1 less for a disabled person on the higher rate of PIP, and £1 less for someone on carer’s allowance. In many cases, these payments are a lifeline for people getting back to work. At the moment, this cash is going to criminals rather than carers.

I now turn to a few recent cases of organised benefit fraud to elucidate the scale of the challenge we face. All have been settled and are now in the public domain following prosecutions.

In May 2024, we saw the largest benefit fraud case in history. The operation saw five Bulgarian nationals forge thousands of documents to make thousands of fraudulent universal credit claims to the value of £50 million.

In October 2023, seven people were sentenced for falsely claiming employment support allowance. They used advanced techniques to hijack identities, resulting in the crime group stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

An investigation by City of London police in 2020 saw enforcement against a benefit fraud ring to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I take a brief moment to praise the excellent work of our law enforcement agencies, including City of London police, who I have met, for their collaboration. That is exactly how the last fraud ring was closed. This example shows the benefit of public-private partnerships, which this Bill seeks to catalyse, in tackling benefit fraud,

What do these cases have in common? The benefit fraud was actually a predicate to other illicit activities. They demonstrate the need to upgrade our response, and this Bill represents additional lines of defence in our rising to the challenges we need to fix. Some of the measures in this Bill will do exactly that: supporting covid-era fraud investigations; strengthening the PSFA by establishing it as a separate entity; giving the PSFA powers to compel evidence and enter premises with a warrant; extending the time limit to bring action against historical fraud to 12 years; and granting extra powers for recovering money.

I recently visited the national economic crime centre at the National Crime Agency, and I know the scale of the challenges we face when it comes to tackling fraudsters. I have no doubt that, with this Bill, the Government will smash the benefit fraud gangs, but we must also acknowledge that this Bill represents a significant shift for the financial industry. It is a step into a new dawn for those in the banks who work on tackling economic crime, as they will be spending more time tackling benefit fraud.

It is right that the Government are pursuing a growth-first strategy, which has to be carefully balanced with the economic crime plan. The Financial Conduct Authority’s new consumer duty was an important stride forward for the industry, and I was proud to play a small role in that, but, as scrutiny of the Bill continues, I warmly invite Ministers to engage with the FCA and report back to the House on how the new powers will carefully balance consumer vulnerability with the need to drive down benefit fraud.

Finally, there is an important scenario that must be considered more carefully as the Bill progresses in this place. A victim of domestic abuse—let us call her “Jane”—is quietly saving money to escape, but then an account information notice is issued. Based on three months of bank statements, a debt recovery notice follows. Jane has 28 days to appeal, but no access to legal advice. Worse still, her abuser intercepts the letter and her savings, which are her lifeline to escape, are seized. Her escape plan is exposed, putting her at risk. We must ensure that financial processes do not accidentally or invertedly work against victims of domestic abuse in those scenarios, as I am sure Ministers are aware.

To close, the Prime Minister said in a speech at a recent Labour party conference:

“If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud”.

When it comes to tackling organised crime groups, not only is he right, but the Bill is proof he is delivering on his promise. The Bill is about smashing the benefit fraud gangs, treating taxpayers’ money fairly and ensuring we have a safety net left for the genuinely vulnerable people who need it. I refer time and again to a point I made in my maiden speech that rings as true today as it ever has done. I said:

“I want to ensure that there is no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.] \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Smith: It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the official Opposition. It has been a really interesting debate, with some strong views expressed by Members from all parties, and the disagreements did not necessarily come from where we might have been expected. In fact, it seems the official Opposition and the Government are more in agreement than anybody else.

The hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all spoke. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made some very valid points. At the end of the debate, the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an interesting point about the connection between the Bill and violence against women and girls, which will be important to consider in Committee. Passionate views were raised by the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It has been an interesting debate all round.

Before I start, I want to reflect on some of the comments made about covid. As has been made clear, the Bill is in two parts: one part is about the Cabinet Office and the increasing powers, and the other is about the benefit fraud challenges facing the DWP. The previous Government, particularly when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was Chancellor, saved a huge number of businesses through the bounce back loans and jobs through the furlough scheme, and provided initiatives like the kickstart programme. Without those, even more people would have needed to claim from the DWP. The National Audit Office has said that there is no evidence of ministerial involvement in improper procurement or contract decisions, so it is important to make that point for the record.

As we have heard, the measures in the Bill are a continuation of much that the previous Conservative Government were implementing before the election was called, but it also contains some concerning extensions to the powers of the new Government. A pattern is emerging: the Government pick up our previous work, quietly remove some of the more sensible plans, and add some ill thought out plans of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) highlighted our record in government of tackling fraud in the welfare system and fighting public sector fraud. Members on the Government Benches seem to have forgotten that record but, in good faith, I will assume that is error rather than fraud on their part. It has been a few hours since my hon. Friend shared that record, so allow me to recap.

Before the pandemic, we worked hard to secure near record low levels of fraud and error across the DWP welfare and tax credit systems. We knew the stress and anxiety experienced by those who had been overpaid, we were hunting down those who were deliberately misappropriating the system, and our actions were making a difference. However, given the amount of Government support provided during the pandemic, it is not surprising that individuals and groups sought to exploit the emergency situation we all faced.

In response to that, we published our “Fighting fraud in the welfare system” paper in May 2022. That crackdown led to a 10% reduction in fraud and error, and £1 billion saved through dedicated counter-fraud activities. In addition, an estimated further £1.35 billion was saved between 2023 and 2024. Our ambition did not end there. Last May, we published a further paper, “Fighting fraud in the welfare system: going further”, which set out plans to save an additional £9 billion by 2027-28 by cracking down on benefit cheats. During the debate, we heard about the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which was the precursor to part 2 of the Bill before us. Furthermore, our proposed fraud Bill would have aligned the Department for Work and Pensions with HMRC, enabling us to treat benefit fraud in the same way as tax fraud, giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests.

All that is before we look at our record of tackling public sector fraud, as additionally included in this new Bill. Our taxpayer protection taskforce secured about £1.2 billion, which was either blocked from being paid out or recovered through our compliance work. We set up the Public Sector Fraud Authority, whose powers are being extended in the Bill, to work across Government to reduce fraud against the public sector. Its first-year target was £180 million, which was smashed with savings of £311 million.

Our risk, threat and prevention service was the first in-house fraud squad of its kind in the world when set up in 2023. Working across Government, it set out to ensure the public purse was protected at key points, as new spending programmes or policies were announced. Why was that important? We know that between 2023 and 2024 alone, the Public Accounts Committee has found that nearly £1 in every £15 was either error or fraud. That is an eye-watering amount of taxpayer money, as the vast majority of Members would agree. The ambition of the Bill for a more powerful Public Sector Fraud Authority could lead to about £54 billion being recovered from public sector fraud in 10 years, which is a welcome figure.

However, the Government could be doing more. We have heard how the taxpayer simply cannot afford the Government to stop here—more action is essential. The new Government’s inaction to date in reforming health and sickness benefits is estimated to have cost the taxpayer approximately £1.8 billion since July 2024, which is around £266 million every month. Instead, the new Government have gone after pensioners, employers and farmers, actions they were ready and waiting to take without delay. Yet here we are, seven months into a new Parliament, with not a peep on how they will reform the benefit system, other than repeating that they will come up with a plan soon. Indeed, they had 14 years to come up with that plan. Every day Labour ducks the tough questions, the benefits bill continues to grow.

However, taking a step back, it is important to remember why we have a benefits or welfare system in the first place. I am sure that across the House we are agreed that it is morally right for the state to provide for the most vulnerable—those who, through no fault of their own, need financial support to provide for themselves or their family. In debating the Bill, it is easy to forget that, in the majority of cases, beneficiaries of additional  support from the state claim it simply to get on with their lives, and they are not a cause for concern. However, as the title of the Bill suggests, there is a need to recover public money that has been claimed either in error or because of fraud—as a result of an innocent mistake or with deliberate intent. This is, after all, as we have heard multiple times, taxpayers’ money that has ended up in the wrong bank account. That needs rectifying, which is why, as we have already made clear, we support the Bill in principle.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent set out a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will address shortly in his summing up. Unsurprisingly, we remain concerned about the final details of the legislation and the huge absence of a plan to tackle the rapidly rising benefits bill. However, we look forward to debating the details of the Bill further in Committee shortly, and working cross-party to ensure that further progress is made. First and foremost, we must see money from the public purse fairly and squarely in the hands of those it is intended for, and not in the hands of the fraudsters working to line their own pockets. \p Andrew Western: I hope that the House will bear with me; I have binned my original closing speech, given the number of contributions that we have heard, and some of the legitimate questions and concerns that colleagues have set out. I thank those colleagues who rightly highlighted the scale of the challenge, and why the Government must act to tackle fraud against the public sector. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) all set out the scale of the challenge, and the views of their constituents on this issue, in very robust terms.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about the risk of unintended consequences, particularly on the issue of violence against women and girls. We are looking at that closely and will continue to do so. A number of Members referred to the alleged lack of an impact assessment, or the publication of one. An impact assessment has been published, alongside the view of the Regulatory Policy Committee, and is available for colleagues to view.

Let me turn to specific concerns about the Bill, starting with those of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I welcome the tone of the Conservatives, and their broad support for a number of the principles in the Bill. She is correct that it is incumbent on the state to get its money back. It is part of the unwritten contract that she referred to. I felt there was a slightly tenuous justification for the escalation in benefit fraud that we have seen in recent years: the war in Ukraine. I know that we are happy to blame Putin for many things, but that was a new one on me. She rightly pointed to an escalation in benefit fraud and error as a result of covid, but that does not explain why the level of fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions was higher in 2023-24 than in any of the years from 2021-22 onwards—£9.7 billion last year, a record level. The issue is getting worse, not better, and that happened on the Conservatives’ watch.

The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the contents of the Conservatives’ fraud plan would have solved all these problems, and that we are copying much of what was in it. It is fair to say that the Conservative party legislated only on the third-party data measure in that plan. The Conservatives never mentioned debt recovery powers, and made no efforts to get a grip on public sector fraud with the new powers that we are introducing by putting the PSFA on a statutory footing. Overall, their appalling record hardly comes as a surprise.

The shadow Secretary of State went on to say that she was concerned about the amount of information being shared by banks. Just to be clear, we will not be sharing any information with banks. The information that will come back to us will have very strict criteria, and we are taking a specific power to fine banks for oversharing information that is out of scope. She asked what testing has been done on this; two trials have been undertaken, so we know that the proposal will work, as it pertains to the eligibility verification measure.

The shadow Secretary of State went on, with some audacity, in my view, to challenge whether the debt recovery powers go far enough—powers that the Conservative party refused to take, and never put forward when they were in government. She mentioned the number of AI schemes that have been set aside. Test and learn is perfectly normal in the AI space. I remind her that some of the schemes that had not been taken forward are now moving through under different names. She mentioned the PSFA, and raised concerns about the right to compel information. The powers have independent oversight to ensure that their use is proportionate, so although no organisations are exempt, all actions are considered within a robust legal framework.

We then heard from the Conservatives, astonishingly, that there is nothing in the Bill to get a grip on the benefits bill. What cheek, when the benefits bill spiralled by some £20 billion on their watch! As for their so-called plan, I remind the shadow Secretary of State that they made a hash of it and that we lost a judicial review on their failed plan just a few weeks ago, so we will take our time to bring forward the proposals and will consult on them, and we will get this right.

I am grateful for the support of the Conservatives, but I hope that it will manifest itself in the voting Lobby later because, with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who I believe is the Parliamentary Private Secretary, we have not had a full speech from a single Conservative Member—just one intervention. If that does not show the lack of seriousness with which they take this issue, the appalling record and position we have inherited should do just that.

I want to spend a little time on the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a champion for vulnerable people. I particularly want to speak to the measures we are taking to assure ourselves of the appropriate support for vulnerable people, both within the scope of the Bill and more generally, because that is important and relates to a number of comments from Members. It is always the Department’s priority to set repayment plans that are affordable and sustainable; that we make use of the debt respite service, Breathing Space, which allows for a temporary protection from creditors; and that we provide additional support to help customers manage their money.  We work with the Money and Pensions Service under its brand name “Moneyhelper”, which offers free, independent and impartial money and debt advice. Indebted customers are routinely offered a referral, with the majority who meet the criteria taking up that offer.

In addition, a DWP debt management vulnerability framework has recently been introduced to provide guidance for advisers on how to support customers at risk of becoming vulnerable, including signposting to specialist support. That is embedded across debt management, and part of that involves advisers undertaking annual refresher training on identifying and supporting customers experiencing vulnerability. Within the scope of the Bill, it is important to recognise that the power of debt recovery will not be used on benefit claimants. It extends only to those who receive their income through means other than benefits or through payrolled employment.

There are also important safeguards in the Bill that govern the process of debt recovery and the new enforcement powers. There will be repeated efforts at contact before any enforcement action is taken, and there will be affordability checks before any deductions are taken from bank accounts. There will be limits on the size of those deductions, a right to require deduction orders and a right to appeal deduction orders beyond that. Also, the DWP can vary or suspend the deduction order following a change in circumstances. \p Kirsty Blackman: I appreciate that the Government have made changes around affordability, but they still do not assess either benefit clawbacks or the deductions on the basis of whether they are actually affordable for the people having to pay them back. Are the Government planning to put that in place at some point in future? \p Andrew Western: 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. \p Kirsty Blackman: The individuals who are going to do the independent assessment will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it not be better for Parliament to agree the appointment of those individuals, so that we can be assured that they are actually independent? \p Andrew Western: 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. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 87.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill:

Committal

The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 20 March 2025.

The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred under, or by virtue of, the Act by a Minister of the Crown, a person holding office under His Majesty or a government department, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2024, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 12 December 2024, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will bundle together motions 6 and 7.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 6 December 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 3 December 2024, be approved. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25), That this House, at its rising on Thursday 13 February, do adjourn until Monday 24 February; at its rising on Tuesday 8 April, do adjourn until Tuesday 22 April; at its rising on Thursday 1 May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6 May; and at its rising on Thursday 22 May, do adjourn until Monday 2 June.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Greg Smith: I rise to register my outrage at the unacceptable situation that all my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire are facing: a tidal wave of energy infrastructure driven by hype, speculation and a closed-minded approach to energy security. As we have seen with countless other large-scale infrastructure projects, be they road, rail or housing, it is rural areas that are thrown under the bus with no thought for the huge impact that both the construction and the operation of those projects has on communities. I therefore strongly encourage the Government to take note of what I believe is a ticking time bomb that risks permanently devastating not just my constituency but countless others across the United Kingdom.

I am sadly no stranger to the problem of big infrastructure. From the moment I was first elected, I have taken every opportunity to put on record the terrible destruction that High Speed 2 has brought on my constituency, from the shameless turfing out of farmers, who have often been left without compensation for years on end, to the sorry state of the roads used by heavy goods vehicles and the sheer size of the compounds that litter the Buckinghamshire countryside—literally industrial waste—for there is no justification for spending £200 billion of taxpayers’ money on a railway that has effectively already become obsolete.

The same is true of ground-based energy infrastructure, which is the least efficient form of energy production. Put simply, the enormous loss of agricultural land required to double the share of national energy consumption generated by solar, which will amount to less than 10% even with the proposed increase, is not worth it. \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Greg Smith: It would not be an Adjournment debate without the hon. Gentleman. I am interested to see how he will get Mid Buckinghamshire into his intervention. I am all ears. \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind you, Mr Shannon, that this debate is about energy development proposals in Mid Buckinghamshire. We are ready for your intervention. \p Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of land. The priority for agricultural land is to provide the food to feed this nation, not for solar energy projects that clog and take away the land. My constituency is similar to his, and my interest is to ensure that that good land is kept for the production of food, as it should be. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman is always on point on these matters. I will come to the important matter of food security later, but he is right. The inefficiency of some energy projects coming forward in Mid Buckinghamshire, as well as in communities in Strangford, I dare say, is a huge challenge not just to food security but to the rural way of life that those in our communities enjoy.

It takes 2,000 acres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to power 50,000 homes on current usage—before everyone has two Teslas on the drive—yet a small modular reactor requires just two football pitches to produce enough power for a million homes on current usage. It cannot be right that the Government are pursuing this technology. I put it to the Minister and to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that nuclear is the answer, but fingers seem to be in ears whenever it is raised. I assume that that is obvious to the Government, as is the vital importance of food security, which is directly compromised by taking land out of food production and giving it over to solar.

The Government seem content with ploughing on. Last week’s revelation in The Daily Telegraph of intentions to convert a tenth of our farmland to use for net zero gives a blank cheque to those intent on destroying rather than preserving our countryside. The countryside is for farming. It is not a building site for solar panels, power plants, battery storage sites or wind turbines. It is for growing food. It is for the local communities and businesses that rely on it.

Attempts to take land away from food production in my constituency are simply unjustifiable. An unjustifiable 3,000 acres of land are already lost or at risk of being subsumed by solar panels. Those 3,000 acres are taken out of food production, no longer farmed by families who have farmed them for generations but are now turfed out, with little to no compensation, and the land unlikely ever to return to food production. Let us bear in mind that that is just for the projects that have been proposed or consented to.

Rosefield is a monster project of immense scale. For this monstrosity alone, over 2,000 acres of land—much of it arable grade 3a and 3b—have been sold off to EDF Renewables for the construction of vast swathes of solar panels right in the heart of the Claydons. That land produces a 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat harvest. Many farmers would bite your right hand off to get that, but it is cast aside by the consultants and proposers of the site as low-grade land. It simply is not. As the name suggests, the area is rich in clay soil, which is incredibly valuable to farmers as it retains rich levels of both nutrients and water. It allows us in Buckinghamshire to produce immense quantities of wheat, barley, beans, oilseed rape and much more.

We are facing a clear trade-off between food security and what is considered today to be energy security. Members will know that I have consistently questioned the suitability and sustainability of solar as a renewable source of electricity. There is nothing renewable about land left to rot underneath solar panels, or the huge amount of emissions from the construction of these vast sites.

We in Buckinghamshire face an equal if not greater threat from battery energy storage sites. These shipping container-sized units use hundreds of lithium ion batteries to store surplus energy, which is later sold back to the grid to meet demand when required. Not only are the battery storage sites noisy and unsightly, but they displace water run-off because of their concrete bases, create light pollution, are a target for vandalism and are a huge fire risk, as I will discuss shortly.

On top of that, such sites are not a sustainable form of energy production. In fact, they do nothing more than hold surplus energy, no matter how or where that  energy has been generated. In fact, with less than 5% of today’s energy consumption coming from solar, the chances are that the energy stored by these sites has not come from the site next door. It is utterly shameful of BESS promoters to label their projects as “sustainable” and “part of the solution”. It is, I am afraid to say, simply a matter of profiteering off the taxpayer while doing little to nothing—that is, for those who do not enjoy a chemically fuelled bonfire. It has been proven time and again, with tragic results, how dangerous battery energy storage sites can be. In September 2020, for example, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to extinguish. While the promoters may spout about new technology guarding us against fire today, it does not and cannot justify placing such sites in rural areas. That is because—surprise, surprise—it takes far longer for fire crews to respond in rural areas, especially ones that are prone to flooding, such as the Claydons, in my constituency, where three BESS applications have been lodged in just one year.

It is not surprising that pouring concrete on to farmland exacerbates flooding, or that hundreds of shipping containers ruin the view for miles around. \p Joy Morrissey: The proposed energy developments will create a strain on our valuable farmland in Mid Buckinghamshire and across Buckinghamshire more widely. Many parts of the county are on a floodplain, which will already be under additional strain because of these different energy developments. Will the Minister look again at these proposals? We already have infrastructure demands because HS2 and housing, as well as energy development, are all going into a very constrained area in Mid Buckinghamshire. \p Greg Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament for that intervention. She is absolutely right that the strain being put on our small, rural county from so many projects—the cumulative impact of the energy proposals that are the subject of my speech, HS2, East West Rail, mega-prisons and so much more—makes the attack on our countryside and the risk, to go to her point on flooding, all the worse.

I just listed a number of things that should not be surprising. However, they seem surprising to promoters, who seem totally oblivious to the idea that farming gives us food, gives people jobs and a livelihood, and gives communities an identity and a vital source of income. However, that does not seem to have stopped them flooding the planning system in Mid Buckinghamshire with these BESS applications. What makes it all the more confusing is that, according to the Government’s newly formed national energy systems operator:

“The number of speculative connection applications has substantially risen over the past few years resulting in an excessively high volume of contracted parties when in reality only about a third of the volume of projects will make it to Completion.”

What we are actually seeing—what is very visible in Mid Buckinghamshire—is a number of these so-called zombie projects that are clogging up the system and causing incredible concern and outrage to local communities, but that may actually never happen. That is simply absurd.

My constituents are constantly being told that the projects are needed for a transition to net zero, yet the vast majority will not even be completed. That goes to show how misguided the Government’s so-called energy  security policy really is: unable to deliver and throwing my constituents under the bus. It should therefore not be a surprise that the misguided and highly speculative nature of the BESS projects has led to countless rejections by local planning authorities.

Less than six weeks ago, when presented with its first BESS application—a 500 MW site in the Claydons—Buckinghamshire council resoundingly rejected it on the grounds of fire risk, lack of access and an inappropriate site location. Our local paper even described the plan as a “terrorists’ dream”. The same goes for York council, which rejected a 100 MW site in the village of Osbaldwick on fire grounds. The same reason led East Renfrewshire council to reject a 40 MW site in the village of Eaglesham in Scotland and Dorset Council to reject a 60 MW facility in the village of Chickerell. I trust the Minister will have taken note not just of those rejections but of the many others which are, if anything, increasing by the week. This, I hope, demonstrates the clear, strong opposition from local communities to BESS facilities.

It is not just about battery storage, solar farms, substations or whatever else forms part of the Government’s flawed approach to energy security. For constituencies such as mine, it is about the cumulative impact of all that and more, over which, time and time again, the local community has had little, if any, say. For my constituents in the Claydons, nearly every major project has been Government-sanctioned with little to no thought as to how, when we combine one of the UK’s largest solar installations, three battery storage sites, two major new railways, a new substation and several new housing developments, a collection of small villages in the middle of the countryside is meant to cope. The short answer is: it has not.

Initially faced with both East West Rail and HS2 construction, the latter ongoing for many years to come, my constituents in that part of Buckinghamshire now face a raft of new energy infrastructure, as well as yet more housing and a new prison. The cumulative impact is devastating, made worse by the fact there is no mechanism—no mechanism—within the planning system that allows the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects in the same area to be accounted for when local authorities are presented with them. It seems logical, yet the Minister must recognise that there is no circumstance that necessitates the flattening of an area that serves no benefit to local residents and leaves them in a near permanent state of disruption and misery.

The latest example of that glaring omission is the application and subsequent rejection of Statera’s plan, which I spoke about a moment ago, to build a 500 MW BESS facility in the Claydons. It turns out that the promoters did not check that they could even get a grid connection on completion, as confirmed by National Grid when pressed on that substation expansion plan before Christmas. This is yet more evidence of the speculative nature of Government-backed infrastructure projects. Just as well, with Statera’s plans having now been rejected.

Elsewhere in my constituency, yet another solar installation, at Callie’s farm near Ilmer, was recently granted planning permission, joining two other nearby sites at Bumpers farm and Whirlbush farm in Kingsey. As a result, when someone enters Buckinghamshire on the train from neighbouring Oxfordshire, they are met  not with farmland but with acres upon acres of solar panels. Further south, and directly affecting my constituents in Little Missenden, we find yet another potential BESS site at Mop End, which if built would require infrastructure reaching 6 metres in height right in the heart of the Chilterns.

In Long Crendon and the surrounding villages, I and the local community are fighting against Acorn Bioenergy’s proposed anaerobic digester, which once again cannot be justified in the middle of the countryside, not when there are 140 lorry movements a day during construction and then operation through villages—I declare an interest as they include my own village of Chearsley—that simply cannot cope and cannot be expected to cope. These are small rural villages with small rural roads, and often the front doors to people’s homes, and the entrances to primary schools and children’s playgrounds, are off those very same roads. \p Joy Morrissey: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the shocking amount of development that is happening, and it is not just about energy; he is also making an excellent point about the lack of local consent. It is shocking that the Government are not honouring the opinions of local people. \p Greg Smith: My hon. Friend has made exactly the point that I want to make, with, perhaps, more succinctness than I have been able to manage. This is indeed about local consent. It is about communities giving their views and actually being listened to when it comes to these projects. Far too often, the desktop exercise that is done in London or Birmingham or Leeds or Manchester, or any of our great cities, is done largely by those who have little or no understanding of rural life—of the way our rural roads actually operate, the way our farmland is actually farmed, and the way our countryside actually works. If local people were listened to a little more often, we might not have some of the problems that these energy infrastructure projects, or projects such as HS2 or East West Rail, throw up on the land that any local will tell you floods three or four times a year.

Those doing the desktop exercise say, “Oh, that is nothing. It is nowhere near a floodplain. That land will not flood.” I have stood on many of these sites in my own wellington boots a number of times, on the land that the consultants in the city say will not flood, with the water lapping up at the top of my boots, and have gone home with wet socks. That is a reality that local people often understand in a way these consultants and desktop exercises never would.

I gently invite the Minister to acknowledge that no matter how sustainable such projects claim to be, the hard truth is that whether it be during the construction or operation of these sites, the transportation of materials effectively offsets any benefit and does permanent damage to a local area, exactly as it has with HS2. Only this week I objected to yet another BESS application in the Claydons, in which the developer has not even bothered to include a battery safety management plan. It is utterly disgraceful, and a reflection of just how speculative these applications are becoming.

Despite this speculation on solar and battery storage, wherever we go in Buckinghamshire there are few if any warehouse roofs with solar panels. That is a real shame, given the amount of unused roof space that could  generate 15 GW of solar-derived energy without damaging a blade of grass or any crop growing in any field. That is equivalent to 46 million solar panels. Why, then, are the Government not actively incentivising the use of large-scale roof-mounted solar, particularly on industrial buildings—the distribution centres and warehouses and factories that we see popping up all around us, certainly near my area when we go out towards Bicester or up towards Milton Keynes? That is a question that is rightly being asked by farmers across my constituency who stand to lose everything when a solar developer comes along, or indeed someone involved in any energy project, with little or no compensation provided.

This is, I am afraid, fairly typical in relation to infrastructure, especially in rural areas where a farm is not just a source of income but someone’s livelihood, and the very shape and beauty of the landscape in rural communities. When it comes to a project the size of Rosefield, which primarily affects tenant farmers, the loss of income not just for individual farmers but for the whole area is devastating. That is because, unlike a freeholder—in this case, the Claydon estate—tenant farmers do not have ownership rights and are therefore not entitled to proper compensation, although this and other sizeable projects are spearheaded by large multinational energy companies for which compensation is normally just a rounding error.

However, it is not just farmers who are affected. Unpaid parish councillors across my constituency are spending ever more time fighting this infrastructure tidal wave. I dare say many have become rather good at it following years of doing battle with HS2, but that by no means justifies thousands of hours each year being spent by countless individuals—countless heroes—sometimes combined with significant sums of money, fighting projects that local residents do not want and did not ask for. They, along with farmers and local business owners, are paying the price for this nonsensical approach to energy security.

For projects that are given the go-ahead, there is little chance of promoters paying up for the damage that they will invariably do to our local road network. That is the sad reality for infrastructure projects, as we have seen with the countless others that I have referenced, although I am proud of the work that I and Buckinghamshire council did to push East West Rail to pay up for the damage it caused. There is no such prospect with energy infrastructure, but the fact is that, with so many sites in one area, the impact on our roads from all the construction traffic would be far worse than any promoter is prepared to admit. Just as we have seen with the railways and the highways works clash, it will delay all projects in the area, ultimately costing the taxpayer and prolonging the misery for my constituents.

This is the reality. If something is not done, we will lose our ability to produce food and we will see the continued erosion of rural communities, and all while doing little to source our energy sustainably. Energy infrastructure does not belong on farmland. It does not belong in Mid Buckinghamshire. Let us drop this nonsense and go for nuclear instead. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Member for securing this evening’s Adjournment debate.  It has certainly not been lacking in hyperbole, and I look forward to responding to his specific points. Phrases such as “ticking time bomb”, “intent on destroying” and “thrown under the bus” suggest that we have taken a rational view on some of these decisions, although I will say that his comment about “two Teslas on the drive” suggests that our constituencies are quite different. Perhaps that will come forward in my remarks.

I will pick up on the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s speech before turning to some of the specifics. He put forward a case that wrongly asserts that the only options are either a clean power system with renewables at its heart, or nuclear. I will come to his point about SMRs shortly, but I agree with him that there is a rational case for balance. We see nuclear as playing a critical role in our energy system in the future, but we also understand that building out a clean power system requires building renewables as well, because they are cheaper to operate and they deliver home-grown energy security in a way that gas plants do not. I will come back to the clean power action plan’s pathway in due course.

The truth is that the hon. Gentleman spent the past 20 minutes outlining—in fact, he was quite open and honest about this—that he wants no infrastructure built in his constituency at all, yet I assume that his constituents still want to be able to rely on that infrastructure in their daily lives, including railways, hospitals, schools, energy and prisons. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues certainly want us to use prisons much more, but he does not want us to build prisons anywhere in his constituency. I am always very careful about the arguments on nimbyism, but at the heart of this issue is a real question about the fact that, at some point, we have to acknowledge that if we are to build infrastructure in this country, it has to be hosted somewhere.

As someone who has one of Europe’s biggest onshore wind farms just outside my window in my constituency, I recognise that some constituencies will have to host important infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we all need to play a part in that. The reality is that delivering energy security requires us to build much more infrastructure, even if that includes small modular reactors. However, it is estimated that demand for electricity in this country will double by 2050, so the need of all our constituents, including the hon. Gentleman’s, for electricity and the jobs of the future will mean building much more infrastructure.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cumulative impact of infrastructure, which the Government have tried to wrestle with. That is partly why we launched the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we have a holistic approach to planning the energy system in the long term—the work should have been started a long time ago, but it was not undertaken by the previous Government. Alongside that, colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have launched the land use framework for the same reason: to try to plan the long-term future for land across our country. Given that food security is incredibly important, how do we protect land for food, and how do we identify pieces of land where we will build nationally important infrastructure? That is incredibly important.

I repeat the point that we need to build infrastructure in this country. I am afraid that we have buried our head in the sand for far too long with respect to the infrastructure that is necessary, and the grid is struggling as a result.  It is really important that we find a way to build that infrastructure in a holistic way that recognises the cumulative impact on communities. I want the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that I recognise that point.

The hon. Gentleman noted that several projects are in the queue to connect to the grid—I think there is some 746 GW in the queue at the moment. I say gently that the reason it has got quite so out of control is that the previous Government did not manage the queue properly. There was not sufficient reform to manage it, so there are, as he says, several zombie projects that will never be developed but are taking up space in the connections queue. We have announced that we want significant reform to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that will actually be delivered, that are important for our energy security and, crucially, that will free up space for demand projects to be connected to the grid, which is important for our economic growth. More on that will be announced by NESO and Ofgem in due course.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give an answer to some of his specific points, because for legal reasons I have to be careful not to comment. However, Rosefield, the solar farm that he mentioned, is at the pre-application stage. The application for development consent is expected to be submitted in, I think, Q3 or Q4 of this year. At this point, it is developer-led.

On a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should say that the Government do not go out and identify these projects; developers identify the projects and then have a conversation with landowners. \p Greg Smith: The problem with the argument that the Minister is trying to construct is that every time a developer comes along with a proposal, and the community pushes back with “Why are you doing this?”, the answer—every single time—is “Because the Government are asking us to.” That is what frustrates communities and frustrates me every single time. If the Minister accepts that that is the developers’ excuse, he can either correct them and say, “No, the Government are not asking you to do this,” or find a way to challenge those presumptions and the cumulative impacts, which I am grateful that he says he wants to address. \p Michael Shanks: I take the point, but although the Government absolutely do say, “We need to build a clean power system and therefore these projects are important,” what we do not say is, “Please build a solar wind farm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.” These are developer-led projects; it is developers who identify the site.

On the question of land ownership, the Government are not in the business of appropriating land for energy projects. The landowners have made a decision to sell their land for these projects, and that is a relationship that they have with the developer. It is a developer-led process. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to provide his views as the process continues. If the Rosefield application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, he and all his constituents will be able to engage with the planning process and register as interested parties.

I reiterate that although the Government think that the planning system could be considerably more efficient, that is not about removing the robustness of the system  so that communities no longer have a voice. We want communities to have a voice in the process, but we do not want them to be hanging around for years until decisions are made. We want the process to be more efficient, but communities should absolutely still have a voice. That is incredibly important.

If the application comes to the Secretary of State, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the pre-application consultation process has been carried out properly and adequately, in compliance with the Planning Act 2008. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given my Department’s quasi-judicial role in these applications, I cannot comment on anything more specific.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on batteries. Battery storage is incredibly important. To build the clean power system we need, we need a mix of both short-duration storage, which batteries provide, and long-duration storage, which we have not built in this country for an extremely long time. We have announced that we will build new long-duration storage, but we know there is an important role for batteries to play in short-duration storage so that we can store the clean power generated from wind and solar for when we need it.

Of course, these projects will go through the planning process too. I am aware that East Claydon has been rejected by the local council. Of course, the applicant has a right to appeal. Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be wrong for me to comment on that particular case at this point.

More generally, batteries are important both for maintaining storage and for reducing people’s bills by storing clean power, which we know is much cheaper in the long run. This minimises the investment in new generation, so if we get the mix of batteries right alongside other renewable technologies, we can help to minimise the need to build more infrastructure by storing power for when we need it. Batteries play an important role in balancing the electricity system.

We outlined in the clean power action plan that between 23 GW and 27 GW of grid-scale batteries could be required to meet our decarbonisation goal by 2030. Not far from my constituency, one of Europe’s largest battery plants was announced recently, so this infrastructure is being shared across the UK.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on rooftop solar, which is a real opportunity. He rightly talks about warehouses, and we have a lot of multi-storey car parks, a lot of factories and a huge number of roofs in this country that I am happy to see covered in solar panels. It is not an either/or. There is certainly a role for rooftop solar, and we have announced that we want to see a rooftop revolution in solar. We have been working on bringing forward new building standards so that new build houses and commercial buildings have this as a key part of their design. There is also a critical role for ground-mounted solar, and we can meet our ambitions if we combine the two.

The previous Government launched a solar taskforce to build out as much capacity in rooftop solar as possible, while also increasing the number of ground-   mounted solar projects, and we have reconvened it to address not just the roll-out but how communities can benefit much better from hosting that infrastructure. We look forward to publishing that soon.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke about food security, and I make it clear that we take the view that food security is national security. It is critically important that we maintain food security across the country. Even if we built out all the solar that we currently expect to build, it would still take up less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land, so we do not see food production and renewable energy as competing priorities. The two can co-exist.

We all want to see a resilient and healthy food system. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Mid Buckinghamshire both mentioned floodplains. Tackling climate change will be one of the most important ways to reduce the frequency of floods in such areas, which is crucial for maintaining arable farmland. We have to tackle the climate crisis if we are to maintain our food security, but we also want a balanced approach to land use.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the land use framework, which was announced last week. Unsurprisingly perhaps—far be it from me to say this—The Daily Telegraph misleadingly suggested that all of this farmland will be reused for renewable energy projects. That is not what the framework says. It says there are a number of uses for that land in relation to sustainability, such as where there are peatlands or particular environmental schemes that could help to lock in carbon, support biodiversity and wildlife, and help us to meet our climate obligations. It is not that the land will be used to build energy projects, as the article wrongly said.

We are determined to bring communities with us. We want communities to have a voice and for communities that host infrastructure to benefit from it, so we will deliver a package of community benefits.

On small modular reactors, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not see energy as coming from one source or another. Nuclear will play a critical role in our energy mix far beyond 2030. It provides a critical amount of baseload, as well as skilled and well-paid jobs across the country. We want to see the SMR programme rolled out. We inherited much of that from the previous Government, but it had not really been progressed and none of it had been built during those 14 years. We now want to move at pace to deliver it. We see nuclear as important, alongside a balanced renewables system.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for securing the debate. He and I will not agree on everything, but I hope we can find a way to ensure that we build a resilient energy system that balances the needs of different communities. On his point about the cumulative impact, I hope we can find a way through that, so that all communities benefit from infrastructure, but some will have to host it as well.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.