That is part of the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I think is a fair point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked about the code of practice and what steps my department will take to ensure transparency and accountability in the exercise of these powers if they are implemented. In the primary legislation, we will make provision to publish the code of practice, which will set out general guidance on how the third-party data power will work, as I have mentioned. We will develop the code of practice with relevant third parties and it will be consulted on publicly before being laid in Parliament. We will explain what the expectation is for data holders and ensure full compliance for the DWP. This will provide assurance that we will operate transparently and mirror the approach that we have taken with other DWP powers. Any changes to the code of practice, other than minor changes, will also be done in consultation with stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, stated that the power was too broad and the gist of one of her questions was that there is no need for all these benefits to be in scope. As the noble Baroness has demonstrated, there is a wide range of benefits and therefore potential avenues for fraudsters to seek to exploit or for error to creep in. That is why it is important that the power enables the department to respond proactively, as new fraud risks emerge.
That said, as the noble Baroness knows, the power will not be exercisable in all the benefits that she listed, such as child benefit, because the legislation is drafted in such a way that it could reasonably be exercised only in relation to benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. I reassure the Committee that using Section 121DA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is a consistent approach that we take to defining benefits in this way to safeguard all existing legislation and account for a benefit being, for example, renamed or amended. It should be stressed that the listing of a benefit does not mean that this power can or will be exercised upon it. The conditions in the third-party data legislation must still apply, and therefore not all benefits will be subject to this measure. That is a very important point.
7 pm
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is not in her place, asked about appointees. Landlords were also mentioned; I reassure noble Lords that I will cover that in the next group. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked what steps we are taking to ensure that there is no repeat of the Post Office Horizon scandal, which I think was also raised by another noble Lord. I want to be quite firm and robust on this: the errors stemming from the Horizon system and the subsequent wrongful convictions of postmasters are one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, and I am very surprised that it has been raised today. The DWP third-party data measure is a data-sharing power, not an investigation power. It requires third parties to look within their own data and provide relevant information to my department that may signal where DWP claimants do not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit they are receiving. It is fair to say that no data source is perfect or infallible, and that is why a human will always be involved in decision-making.
Any signals of potential fraud or error will be looked at comprehensively. I do not want to go any further except to say that any comparison with the Horizon scandal—and it is indeed a scandal—is unwarranted and unjustified, in my personal view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked what plans my department has for those whose benefit is stopped or who incur overpayment. Again, as I may have alluded to, under this measure it is only when data that has been received signals potential fraud and error that the DWP may consider further intervention to ensure that a claim is correct. If, as a result of this business-as-usual process—business as usual means that we do this all the time—an overpayment is identified, the DWP is committed to working with anyone struggling with their repayment terms and will look to negotiate sustainable and affordable repayment plans, as we do at the moment.
I have covered the definition of a benefit, but there will be more on that in the next group of amendments.
I was interested to listen to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We will address state pensions in the next group, but we do indeed have a list of those countries that allow uprating and those that do not. I think the default is where we allow uprating, but there is definitely a list. I recall answering an Oral Question on this very subject, as noble Lords may recall. I will try to address that in the next group. That includes the state pension, which I mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Kamall, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and, particularly, because she is in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether this will adversely impact the most vulnerable, such as severely sick or disabled claimants. That is a fair point, but the DWP is confident that this proposal meets our obligations to eliminate discrimination, in that we have not identified any groups with protected characteristics that could be disproportionately impacted. The measure does not target a particular group of benefit claimant. For vulnerable claimants, including those who have an appointee, which is covered in the next group, or who may be in care, which was mentioned as well, we have tried-and-tested safeguarding processes to protect vulnerable groups and, as I mentioned earlier, will follow the business-as-usual processes.
On the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on his amendment, fraud against the public sector is a crime that impacts us all. It affects the quality and quantity of public services and ultimately damages those whom society should protect the most. The Government are committed to tackling all fraud committed against the taxpayer. That is why we have established the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office. To broaden these powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, would be disproportionate and unworkable. It would undermine the effective safeguard in place as part of the power to ensure that it is targeted only where there is a link between the department, the claimant and a third party, and would diverge from the policy intent, which is to tackle welfare fraud and error.