This is an opportunity to speak to the motion in my name on legislative consent in respect of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2025. When I spoke to the previous consent motion in my name on the bill, I was clear that, although I support efforts to reduce fraud and error in public finances, that cannot be done at the expense of treating people with fairness, dignity and respect.

Today’s motion relates to two areas in the bill for which I am happy to recommend legislative consent. I will also cover the overpayment provisions, for which I previously said that I would not recommend legislative consent and which the UK Government has subsequently amended to ensure that they do not apply to any devolved benefits, including those that are administered under agency agreement.

First, in regard to non-benefit payments, the UK Government proposes to use recovery and enforcement powers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to recover payments that it makes beyond social security. For example, using that legislation, it might seek to recover grants that it pays out.

I am content to recommend consent because, although the definition of “non-benefit payment” might be broad enough to encompass the recovery of devolved payments, the UK Government has confirmed in writing that it has no intention to recover such payments now or in the future, which renders any potential impacts on devolved matters theoretical only. Furthermore, future devolved payments that could be administered by the Secretary of State and might fall within the scope of those powers could themselves require primary legislation and, subsequently, Scottish parliamentary consent, which would ensure due parliamentary process before any introduction.

In the bill as introduced, authorised Department for Work and Pensions staff would have been able to seize evidence relating to the commission of a DWP offence—that is, an offence that relates to a social security fraud. The provisions have been amended and will allow authorised DWP staff to preserve evidence found that relates to any crime should they encounter it when entering or searching premises. There is precedent for that approach: immigration legislation allows immigration officers to seize evidence of non-immigration offences to ensure that it is not lost and can be passed to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Therefore, there is nothing in those provisions that conflicts with the principles that underpin the devolved social security system.

The provisions on overpayment recovery do not appear in the motion because the UK Government amended the bill to ensure that devolved benefits, including those paid under agency agreements, will not be subject to the new recovery powers. However, I know that they will be of interest to members.

I acknowledge that the UK Government has a duty to manage public finances responsibly. The Scottish ministers share that responsibility. However, it cannot be done at the expense of our principles and ethos.

A range of powers is already available to Social Security Scotland to recover overpayments that arise as a result of fraud and error. The agency’s published error control strategy sets out that it already uses routine quality checking, data analysis and claim reviews to detect error and routinely recovers debt. Social Security Scotland’s next set of annual accounts, which are due for publication in November, will set out that more than £9 million of overpayments were identified and corrected in the financial year 2024-25 as a result of fraud or error interventions, with almost £3 million of associated estimated future losses prevented.

Social Security Scotland has a long-established zero-tolerance approach to fraud, which is outlined in its published counter-fraud strategies, and a wide range of investigative tools at its disposal, including intelligence sharing, fraud reporting channels and the use of surveillance where appropriate. All of that is rightly designed to protect the public purse. Therefore, I reassure members that, although it is still maturing, the fraud and error service clearly adds considerable value in protecting the public purse.

Although we are content with many of the measures in the UK bill, the Scottish Government does not support the provisions that would allow the DWP to deduct money directly from a person’s bank account without a court order or to suspend a driving licence. As a result, it will be necessary to adjust the working arrangements between the Governments to ensure that those specific new powers do not apply to the recovery of devolved debt that was accrued while the DWP delivered benefits on our behalf under agency agreements.

However, I want to be clear that that does not mean that the approximately £35 million of historic debt that is covered by those arrangements will not be recovered. Officials are now in discussions with the DWP to identify the debts, the arrangements for transfer and, therefore, the options for recovering the debt in line with the extensive powers and administrative arrangements that are already at Social Security Scotland’s disposal.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 22 January 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clauses 78, 90, 98 and 99, and schedule 4, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.