Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not congratulating the Minister for choosing to spend her honeymoon in these august surroundings. What better way?
At Second Reading, I highlighted the cultural problem with tackling fraud—that it is often safer to overlook than to uncover—so we have to change the culture and ensure that proper tackling of fraud is a cultural practice embedded within every public authority and government department. There is merit in creating a body with the powers to investigate fraud externally, but we need to make sure that proactive prevention and investigation into fraud start at home. Our Amendment 2 seeks to create an obligation for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to support public authorities in undertaking their own investigations into fraud when it occurs in said public authorities. In further developing the PSFA, the Bill provides us with a new resource and opportunity to support departments to intervene early and create mechanisms through which they can tackle this issue internally.
This objective has several key advantages. One major advantage is that this approach recognises that public bodies are complex, with unique funding mechanisms and operational procedures. Internal fraud teams bring intimate knowledge of these environments and have greater capacity to pursue targeted objectives, using knowledge that external agencies may lack. This allows for swifter detection of anomalies, targeted interventions and smarter use of data and insight.
Another significant advantage is that conducting internal fraud investigations inspires deterrence. Internal investigations can often begin before fraud escalates or becomes systemic. Timely action minimises losses and creates a departmental culture that stands more firmly against fraud. Not waiting for an external body to point out what has already gone wrong can embed a culture of deterrence and proactive interdepartmental counterfraud measures, which are an opportunity to minimise losses and therefore departmental damage.
Of course, internal investigation must never mean internal cover-up. The answer is not to sideline external oversight but to complement it. We must ensure that departments are equipped with the right skills, resources and authority to carry out investigations properly and that they are held to account when they fall short.
Our Amendment 24 seeks to strike this balance by requiring public authorities to conduct an internal review if they lose £50,000 or more through an overpayment or fraud, and to provide that report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. This measure seeks to meet the benefits that I have just outlined, while embedding in law that responsibility for fraud cannot be outsourced. Authorities that lose money must take account of why this has happened and, fundamentally, they must also take responsibility for it. Making them accountable to the Minister is a mechanism through which we can achieve this.
I hope that the Government will consider supporting the amendments in this group, which seek to embed departmental accountability for fraud while utilising the resources of the PSFA to create intradepartmental cultures that deter and counteract fraud. I beg to move.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, if we continue at this speed, the Chief Whip will be disappointed that we are doing only seven groups. It is probably unlikely that we will continue at this speed, but I can aspire.
While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I want to be clear that Amendment 2 is unnecessary as it is duplicative. It would insert “investigating”, as a way that the Minister can support other public authorities’ actions in response to fraud, separately from the explicit function of investigating if a request is made of the Minister by the public authority, which is earlier in the same clause. It is unnecessary because the word “tackling” in the same line of the clause cited covers any activity to support a public authority dealing with fraud and supporting them in their own investigations too. It is deliberately drawn broadly so, if adopted, this amendment would not change the scope of Part 1.
The Government’s intention with Part 1 is for the PSFA to become one of the ways that public authorities deal with fraud, by requesting that it take on a case for investigation, enforcement or recovery. The PSFA is also happy to support other public authorities in their own fraud investigations, and already does so. Which option is best will depend on the facts of the case.
Amendment 24 would require departments to conduct an internal review if, following a PSFA investigation, it is confirmed that they have lost more than £50,000 to overpayment or fraud. All losses at this scale should already be investigated and reported on. There are established audit, assurance and reporting processes for this.
In addition, the facts of the case would already have been established by the PSFA, and learnings taken from it will be shared on a cross-government basis to aid the prevention of fraud—hence the establishment of the PSFA within the Cabinet Office. This amendment would create an extra burden on each department and replicate the work of the PSFA, and is unnecessary as its core aim will already be addressed through other activities.
I hope that this explanation reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and that she can therefore withdraw her amendment. I expect that we will discuss more of this in great detail as we continue.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As we draw the debate on this group to a close, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with the issues—so I thank the Minister. We are clear in our recognition that tackling fraud must go beyond enforcement. It must be a culture embedded across every public authority and government department. Although it is right that the Public Sector Fraud Authority must have the powers and resources it needs to act decisively, with these amendments we highlight that fraud prevention cannot and must not rely on external investigation alone. The work must begin within departments themselves.
Amendment 2 reflects our view that the Minister for the Cabinet Office should have a duty to support public authorities in carrying out their own investigations, and the amendment seeks to use the resources of the PSFA to encourage early intervention, the development of internal counterfraud capability, and ensuring that every public body has the tools to act on fraud swiftly and effectively to counter fraud at home.
Our Amendment 24, which would require internal reviews for significant losses, is a proportionate and reasonable step towards building a culture of accountability across the public sector. If a public authority loses £50,000 or more through fraud or overpayment, it is right that the public body must work to understand what went wrong, and it is right that it must explain this to the Minister. Without our amendment, we risk allowing the same mistakes to recur, with no mechanism for learning or redress within the public body itself.
Our amendments seek to promote a culture of responsibility. They seek to ensure that no department or authority sees fraud as someone else’s problem or as a matter that will simply be dealt with elsewhere. The message that these amendments send is clear: tackling fraud must begin at home. These proposals are balanced, targeted and grounded in practical experience. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on these points and consider working with us to embed this into the Bill. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting point. It is in the guidance, but I will write to him so that he has a written record.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and repeat that to spend her honeymoon in this way is truly admirable.
Our proposal in this group is straightforward: that Clause 7 and the corresponding Schedule 1 do not stand part of the Bill. The powers set out in them are neither minor nor administrative; they are both sweeping and consequential, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out. They are powers to enter private premises, to search them in the absence of the owner, to seize property and to retain it indefinitely if deemed necessary.
Clause 7 permits junior civil servants in the Cabinet Office to apply for search warrants in connection with indictable offences. These officials, who are under no legal obligation to possess police-level investigative training or operational experience, would be empowered to enter someone’s property and seize anything they believe is linked to a criminal offence. They may seize computerised information. They may retain this property for as long as they consider necessary. These are serious powers. They are, in every meaningful sense, police powers, and we believe that it should be the police who exercise them.
That is not a theoretical objection; it is a practical one. If the Government believe that the investigation of fraud against the state demands this level of intervention, they should work with law enforcement to build capacity, not attempt to bypass it—as I said previously. The public expect these duties to be undertaken by the police, not officials from within the Cabinet Office.
We are not proposing an end to investigations by the PSFA—far from it. We recognise the importance of this work, and the Government’s own framing of this clause makes it clear that investigations can proceed substantially without the need for these powers. If that is the case, transferring this responsibility to trained police officers, rather than allowing civil servants to exercise it, would not hinder the PSFA’s ability to investigate fraud. It would ensure that intrusive state powers are exercised by those who are properly equipped to wield them.
This is a matter of constitutional balance and operational integrity. Clause 7 and Schedule 1 confer powers that go beyond the traditional remit of the Civil Service. They risk blurring the lines between executive authority and law enforcement. We therefore hope that noble Lords across the Committee, and the Government, will consider supporting this proposal as a measured change, keeping powers in the remit of those who are best placed to exercise them, while ensuring that PSFA investigations can continue in the pursuit of the objectives we all support.
Improving Cyber Resilience
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The NAO report was clear in its criticisms of our structures, and we accept every recommendation of the report. We are working our way through them, which is why we will be bringing forward a government cybersecurity strategy this year—building on the work of the previous Government—to make sure that we are fit for purpose. On the updating of IT, I have just lived through the updating of the printer system in the Cabinet Office. I would suggest that we take a bit of time with the next one.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in November last year, media reports confirmed that the GOV.UK One Login service had been adopted by 50 government services, and that was expected to reach 100 within the year. However, Computer Weekly has since reported on serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Given that One Login processes biometric data from millions of citizens, why have the Government refused to publish their data protection impact assessment, and can the Minister confirm whether the rollout will continue on that timescale?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a series of important questions. Given the detail of them, I will write to her, and make sure that I speak to relevant officials, so that she gets the answers that she seeks. On One Login, over 5 million people are currently using it to prove their identity, and the ID Check app has over 6.5 million downloads, and a 4.7 rating on all app stores. If there are questions to answer, I will make sure that we get her the answers.
Arm’s-length Bodies
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. I assure your Lordships’ House that there is no way we will engage in this process with that approach. We want to make sure that we can deliver an agile Government, fit for purpose in the 21st century, with the people in the right places and the appropriate accountability to government departments. We want to do this in a way that respects and values the people who deliver our public services day in, day out. I put on record my thanks to the civil servants and public services doing everything to deliver for our country.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the abolition of NHS England was a rare decisive move from this Government, but the Government’s actions on quangos do not match the rhetoric. The Government have admitted to being in the process of setting up 29 new bodies, as per the last Written Question, and these are the ones the Government are currently admitting to. Can the Minister explain how this is in line with the so-called bonfire of the quangos?
Government Supply Chains: Cotton
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an excellent point on how we do it. It is about making sure that modern-day slavery is part of every conversation that is had when we discuss trade deals. I checked to make sure where my clothes came from before I came here today to make sure I was wearing clothes that came from areas that are not subject to modern slavery. Although I was genuinely worried about China, there were other countries on the safety list that I also needed to check. For the record, my clothes are from Turkey and Indonesia—I am fine.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this side of the House supported the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to the Great British Energy Bill. We welcomed the Government’s decision to listen to the noble Lord and to commit to amending the Bill. Does the Minister agree that this sets a direction for Ministers across government to follow?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness FinnTuesday 25th March 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I start by making it clear that we value the contributions of all noble Lords in this House, regardless of whether they have served as Members in the other place or as special advisers in government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest, as a former special adviser myself, and in full awareness that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who, of course, is not only a former Member of Parliament but a former Prime Minister. Your Lordships’ House benefits a great deal from their service, as it does from many others who have come from the other place or through government.
None the less, these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is for. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience that we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second Chamber and that we do not blur the lines between the two Houses.
Your Lordships’ House benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise, whether from former Members of Parliament or otherwise. The House of Lords Library has produced useful research in this area, which tells us that 21% of noble Lords have previously served as MPs in the House of Commons; that is 181 former MPs. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—the House of Lords Library does not readily provide information on the number of former special advisers, but, as we know, there are at least three of us in the Chamber this evening. I understand why some noble Lords might consider a cap on the number or proportion of ex-MPs and special advisers, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendments, to be beneficial and to ensure a balance of perspective and experience in your Lordships’ House.
The expulsion of our hereditary colleagues would deprive us of a huge amount of private sector experience, which cannot easily be replaced. The Bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, the former president of the Heavy Transport Association and a former managing director of Paperchase. They are among many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss. We should not take their experience and expertise for granted; it is vital for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industry, workers and employers alike, and our wider economy, that our private sector is properly represented by those who know and understand its operation.
Of course, having a background in politics does not preclude one from having other types of experience. Indeed, it is valuable experience in itself. Some of our most effective Members are those who have been here the longest and who have learned over the years how to get things done within Parliament and across government—critical skills in a legislative Chamber.
The other suggestion that we have discussed is what I consider a cooling-off period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage and perhaps lighten the pressure on Prime Ministers to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to limit the ability of a democratically elected Prime Minister to make the appointments that they wish.
As my noble friend pointed out, these amendments cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second Chamber. We fulfil a role that is very different from that of the other place. We have the time and ability to scrutinise and revise legislation in a way that the House of Commons does not, while respecting the will of the elected House. This House is one of the highest-quality revising Chambers in any democracy, and it is a role that the House rightly takes very seriously.
Your Lordships’ House has a constructive, consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more like Punch and Judy than noble Lords are used to. We should be wary of any such trends. Your Lordships’ House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the many negative effects of losing our hereditary Peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of the conventions and manners of this House.
To conclude, I do not support the literal interpretation of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but I understand and sympathise with the intention with which they were tabled. We welcome the contributions and experience of all noble Lords, but it is right that we should reflect on what we will lose with the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right that we reflect on the unique role that your Lordships’ House has in our parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect on and debate these thoughtful proposals.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this is an intriguing set of amendments, particularly given the professional experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare my interest as a former Member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned, that it would be my stratospheric reputation that earned my place here—
Public Sector: Working From Home
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I think most of us in your Lordships’ House benefited from being in workplaces so that we could be mentored and learn from people who are more experienced—I definitely do every day in your Lordships’ House. In terms of making sure that people are working in the office, the easiest example for me to give is the Civil Service. Civil servants are now required, as the previous Government established, to work 60% of their time in office environments to ensure that institutional knowledge is passed on from new starters to those more experienced but also for those more experienced to learn from new approaches to the world in which we live.
Baroness Finn (Con)
We heard what the Minister said about working with the unions. Last month the FDA Civil Service union published its findings that almost two-thirds of the staff it surveyed felt that having to work in the office three days a week decreased their productivity. Will the Minister confirm whether the FDA’s findings tally with the Government’s own official analysis of the impact of the three-day in-office rule?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My right honourable friend in the other place Pat McFadden has been clear that we want to ensure that people are working in the office. We genuinely believe that there is social capital developed from having office-based approaches, and we are committed to retaining 60% of staff in the office during their contracts. We should also reflect on the fact that one of the opportunities that this has given the state is that we have been able to consolidate the estate, one example of which is 1 Victoria Street, which was recently sold, leading to annual savings of £30 million. This gives us an opportunity in terms of hybrid working but also to ensure that we are getting value for money for the public purse.
Council of the Nations and Regions
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Finn(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Work is under way. This is about how devolution works, and therefore there will not be one person who announces that. We are working with each devolved authority to make sure that any changes and updates to the MoU on the Sewel convention work for all devolved Governments and will report in due course.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the council’s activities do not duplicate existing structures or initiatives, particularly in relation to devolution agreements and inter- governmental relations? Is clear value for money therefore provided by the council for taxpayers across the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to suggest that, for the last 14 years, there have been challenges in conversations between devolved Governments and mayors and the Government. That has not benefited economic growth in any corner of our country. This is to fix that and is therefore value for money. On the substantive question of where the Council of the Nations and Regions fits into intergovernmental relations and bodies that already exist, all those bodies exist because of conversations that have happened with the devolved Governments, so we are working with them to make sure that this structure, and future structures, will work for them to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.