Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Third sitting)

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate clause 2 stand part.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I look forward to constructive dialogue with the Committee throughout the day.

As the Committee is well aware, fraud against the public sector takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the Government, damages the integrity of the state and erodes public trust. The Bill makes provision for the prevention of fraud against public authorities by the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error, and for connected purposes. Under part 1, the Bill authorises powers that will be used by the Public Sector Fraud Authority, part of the Cabinet Office, and under part 2, by the Department for Work and Pensions, on which the other Minister in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will lead.

I will now consider clauses 1 and 2 together. Clause 1 gives new core functions to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and sets out what can be recovered by the use of the powers under part 1 of the Bill. It describes what the Government want to achieve with part 1: to investigate more public sector fraud; to get back funds lost to the public purse through that fraud; to take enforcement action against fraudsters, whether through civil or criminal routes; and to support public authorities to prevent and address fraud against them.

The functions of the powers under part 1 will be used to deliver. As such, it is necessary that this clause stands part of the Bill. The functions are given to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but it is important to stress that that is drafting convention, and the Minister will not use the powers personally; instead, in line with the Carltona principles, later clauses set out that the decisions may be taken and powers utilised by authorised officers and authorised investigators appointed by the Minister. Those officials will sit within the Public Sector Fraud Authority and will be experienced investigative professionals trained to Government counter-fraud profession expectations, sitting in a structure led by senior counter-fraud experts. As we heard from the witnesses, that will sit within a system of oversight, to be discussed later in the Bill.

The clause also sets out what “recoverable amounts” are. First, that means payments made as a result of fraud or error that have been identified during the course of a fraud investigation to be either fraudulent or erroneous, and which the affected public authority is entitled to recover. Later clauses cover how that entitlement is established. Error as well as fraud is included here, because if an investigation discovers that there has not been fraud, but none the less that a person has received money that they should not have, the debt powers in the Bill can, if necessary, be used to recover it. That is in line with the approach taken by others, including His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the DWP, but it is important to stress that the core function of the powers is to investigate and recover losses from fraud. Recovery in that way will normally be when alternative voluntary routes have been exhausted, or a person or business can repay but is refusing to do so. All attempts will be made to engage.

Secondly, “recoverable amounts” covers any other amount that a public authority is entitled to recover in respect of that fraud. That covers frauds where no payment has been made, but the fraudster has benefited in some other way—for example, fraudulently not paying what they owe—and the value of that can be determined. Finally, it also includes any interests which would be collectable in those circumstances.

Clause 2 sets out how the Minister for the Cabinet Office can carry out the functions in clause 1. The clause excludes HMRC and the DWP from the list of bodies that the PSFA will be able to take this action for as they both have significant resources and expertise in this area, as well as their own powers. Again, we will discuss that later.

Importantly, the clause does not remove or supersede responsibilities and functions that other public authorities may have in respect of fraud and the recovery of money. The powers in this part allow the Government to fill a gap and complement what already exists. The intention is that, in exercising these functions, the Minister, and the authorised officers and investigators who will use the powers on behalf of the Minister, are not simply moving investigations and recoveries that would happen anyway into the Cabinet Office. Instead, they will primarily use them in a way that is additive, to take on investigations, recover money and take enforcement action that would otherwise not have been done.

Subsection (3) says that the Minister may charge “a fee”. The PSFA does not currently charge for its investigative services, but that gives it authority to do so in the future, consistent with the cost-recovery approach set out in HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. “Public authority” has a broad definition set out in clause 70 and would include, for example, other Government Departments, arm’s length bodies and local authorities.

Clause 2(4) says that the Minister is included in the definition of public authority in clause 70 as far as that concerns fraud or suspected fraud against the Minister, or recovery of money for the Minister. That is to ensure that frauds against the wider Cabinet Office and its agencies and bodies can still be investigated by the PSFA. However, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, it will be set out in guidance that the PSFA will not investigate alleged frauds within the PSFA or allegations against the Minister personally but will refer those to another agency as deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis. That will help to ensure the integrity of PSFA investigations by keeping responsibility for investigating fraud in the PSFA, or by the Minister, external to that function, to preserve appropriate independence.

Finally, subsection (5) ensures that, in giving Ministers these functions, this part does not affect a public body’s entitlement to recover an amount or any functions it has in respect of fraud or recovery. That means existing functions and powers are not taken away from public authorities or superseded by the Ministers’ functions.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

His Majesty’s Opposition agree with the Bill’s principles and support the Government in what they are seeking to do, but we will be using our best efforts to try to help them do it better where we can. As the Minister said, clause 1 sets out the functions. Those functions seem perfectly sensible and reasonable, as does the way in which the Minister for the Cabinet Office is to interact with other public authorities as set out in clause 2. One of the themes that runs throughout almost all clauses of the Bill is the issue raised by multiple witnesses on Tuesday about how the functions to be allocated to the Minister or their representatives are to be exercised within the various codes of practice provided for in the Bill.

On Tuesday, the Minister seemed to indicate that the Government intend for those codes of practice to be made available for the House of Lords to scrutinise, but not for the House of Commons. That obviously makes it much more difficult for the Committee to consider the appropriateness of those functions and the various powers in the Bill. I urge the Government again to reconsider and look at how the House of Commons can be given those chances before our House completes its consideration. We recognise that that will not be possible in Committee.

In August 2022, the previous Conservative Government established the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office. We welcome the Bill taking that work forward by establishing the PSFA as a separate body from the Cabinet Office, to which the Cabinet Office is able to transfer functions. We entirely support the Government’s efforts to tackle fraud and error.

The National Audit Office puts the amount lost by fraud and error in the range of £5 billion to £30 billion in 2023-24, so ensuring that the Bill works to tackle both error and fraud is crucial within the functions set out in clause 1, and we will come on to that with some of our amendments to later clauses. Equally, we wish to ensure that the functions assigned to the Minister for the Cabinet Office are proportionate and capable of independent review and oversight. We will return to these important issues with our amendments later on.

I would like to ask the Minister some questions on clauses 1 and 2, the first of which is about the definitions. The Bill does not provide definitions of “fraud against a public authority” or “error”. As we heard in evidence on Tuesday, Dr Kassem from Aston University stated that

“the definition of fraud can be a bit limiting in the current Bill, because, first, it assumes that fraud is happening for financial reasons when that is not necessarily the case. There are non-financial motives. Let us consider insider fraud—fraud committed by insiders, people working for the public authorities—which is one of the most common threats not just in the public sector, but across other sectors. A disgruntled employee can be as dangerous as someone with a financial motive. So I would stick with the Fraud Act 2006 definition of fraud, because it mentions personal gain full stop. It can be financial and it can be non-financial. That has to be clarified.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 6, Q3.]

Really, it must be clarified within the functions set out for the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Why should that not be the case, and how does the Minister define these things for the Bill, if it is not in line with the Fraud Act 2006? Clause 2(3) also states:

“The Minister may charge another public authority a fee in relation to the exercise of functions under this Part on behalf of, or in relation to, the public authority.”

Can the Minister clarify what we would expect that fee to be? Is it arbitrary or a set amount? Does the Minister decide or is there a particular process?

I would also like to ask the Minister about the amounts that the Government expect to recover under the Bill. According to its impact assessment, the powers in part 1 are estimated to lead to around £54 million—the best estimate for net present benefits—being recovered from public sector fraud over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure the Committee how robust that estimate is, what it is based on and how confident the Government are that the full amount of money will be recovered?

The reason I ask that is because, for the Government across the 10 years, the best estimate for fraud recovered minus costs is £23 million. Different numbers of cases could mean a loss or a slightly higher return, which could be between minus £1.5 million and £24 million. How will the Government ensure that the Bill recovers more money than is paid out in costs in administering its functions? As clauses 1 and 2 are the foundation for establishing the PSFA, the Opposition are content for them to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reflect on what we saw during the covid pandemic. One business in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Government had filled up carrier bags with crisp £50 notes, put them at strategic points on the high street and asked people to pick them up, with limited checks occurring. I am pleased that we are looking to draw that back, but again, we come back to our grave concerns about the hasty approach being taken throughout the Bill, when we need to get this right first time. Taking our time means better legislation.

[Georgia Gould]

I thank both hon. Members for their constructive comments. This dialogue will be really important in scrutinising the Bill. I also welcome the support for action on fraud, and the acknowledgment that it is a significant issue.

On timing, I reassure the hon. Member for Torbay that the powers in the Bill that the PSFA is asking for are all powers that exist elsewhere in government. They have been used and tested; they are just being brought into a new context. At the moment, there are few powers to investigate or recover fraud that happens to the wider public sector, but this part of the Bill seeks to rectify that. There has been a great deal of consultation led by me, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and our teams to get us to this point, but we will engage constructively with scrutiny as we move forward.

On the cost-benefit analysis, the overwhelming message from witnesses was that these new powers are necessary because there is a gap in investigating and recovering fraud against the wider public sector, and that the Bill will make a difference.

On the question of the £54 million and whether that is robust, that is a modest amount given we know that at least £3 billion of fraud happens against the wider public sector. It has come about through a great deal of work from the PSFA in modelling forward the current size of the enforcement team and how the powers are used elsewhere. We can therefore be confident in that figure, but if the powers work well we could grow the capacity and potentially recover more fraud.

At the moment, we know that there is fraud going on that the Government cannot investigate. A big part of this will be the deterrent and making it clear that if there is fraud in procurement or grants, there will be real powers to investigate and recover that money. That is really important both for the concrete recovery of money and for trust in how public funds are spent.

On the wider points about the importance of oversight, including of the Bill, that has been incredibly important to the Government. We thought deeply about the measures in the Bill and we will discuss that as we go through it. As for the development of the codes of practice, as I hope the Committee will see today, I will refer to the measures that are to be put in the code of practice as we go through the clauses, so that we can have some discussion about that.

I reassure the Committee that the definition of fraud in clause 70 is as it is defined in the Fraud Act 2006. That includes the main fraud offences, which are false representation, fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so, and fraud by abuse of position. Hopefully that provides reassurance on that question, and I look forward to answering any other questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Information notices

[Mike Wood]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) the information is likely to relate to the suspected fraud, and

(d) the cost involved in recovering the required information is likely to be reasonable and proportionate.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I welcome those probing amendments, because they give me an opportunity to provide some clarity and reassurance on those important points. I will respond to them in a second, but on the question of safeguards, as I said in my introduction, we have thought very deeply about them and we are really mindful of the responsibility of these powers, so a broad range of safeguards has been built into both sides of the Bill.

On the PSFA measures, all the use of powers will be overseen by a separate team that will be accountable to an independent chair who will transparently report their findings annually to Parliament. The use of the wider powers will be overseen and reviewed by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which has a lot of experience in this. There are various routes of appeal and review built into the powers, as well as times when applications to court are needed, and we will deal with those in some depth as we go through the clauses. Oversight is absolutely critical, and that is why we have put such a robust oversight system in place.

On clause 3, currently any information needed from first parties or connected third parties can be asked for only if they refuse to provide it, and there is no way for the PSFA to compel the information to be produced without having to go through the civil court. The clause enables authorised officers in the PSFA to compel information to be produced that is not excluded, where it is necessary, proportionate and in line with the data protection legislation, from individuals and businesses as part of a civil fraud investigation. As we discussed on Tuesday, those authorised officers will all be highly trained and subject to professional standards and a code of conduct.

In particular, clause 3 extends the Minister’s powers to include taking copies of information and requiring the individuals to provide information in a specified form. The power includes imposing duties on an individual to retain information that they already hold for longer than they would normally be required to. For example, that might apply where the PSFA requests contractual notes as part of an investigation that a person may retain for only three years. Where the request is made just before the end of that period, the information notice would also explain that any failure to supply the specified information might result in a civil penalty being imposed.

The clause details the requirements of the information notice, including the format, the timeline for compliance and the location for submission. A similar approach is used by HMRC. In practice, authorised officers would engage, where possible, on a voluntary basis before issuing an information notice. The clause also ensures that there are restrictions on the information notice from demanding “excluded material” or “special procedure material”, as defined under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

I will turn to the amendments, and as I said, I am very grateful for the opportunity to explain how this clause works, which I hope will provide some reassurance. Clause 3(1)(a) and (b) set out a test for issuing an information notice. An authorised officer will have the power to compel information only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and only when the information being requested relates to a person whom the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed fraud. On that basis, PSFA authorised officers will request the information only when there are reasonable grounds to do so.

The question that amendment 10 raises is, “What is meant by ‘reasonable grounds’?” It must be objectively reasonable for them to suspect fraud, given the information available to them. An authorised officer must genuinely suspect that the fraud has been carried out by the individual, and that belief will be based on facts, information and/or intelligence. Reasonable grounds cannot be supported on the basis of personal factors such as those listed in the amendment, or a hunch. It is critical to set out that authorised officers will be using those facts and will be bound by the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act.

The reasonable grounds test is a standard, widely accepted test used by various organisations, including the DWP, the Serious Fraud Office and the police. Further to that, to ensure that the reasonableness test is applied properly in practice, the PSFA will have built in place safeguards. For example, authorised officers must consider all the facts of a case known to them at that time when they decide what is reasonable. Authorised officers must ensure that each decision made relating to the use of the powers is documented and available for checking. Management checks will ensure that those procedures are followed correctly. Information holders can also request a review of a decision to issue an information notice if they feel that there were no reasonable grounds.

As I said, there will also be independent oversight of the use of powers by an independent body such as HMICFRS or the new independent chair. I am setting out this detail on the record now, but we will also be transparent about this for those who do not leaf through Hansard. The code of practice envisioned by this legislation for the PSFA elements of the Bill relates to civil penalties. As civil penalties are the mechanism for ensuring compliance with the information gathering powers, we will also set out in the code of practice, and in further published guidance if necessary, how the information gathering powers will be used in practice, as I am doing today. We will also fulfil the commitment that we made on Tuesday to talk about what will be in the codes of practice as we reach the relevant parts of the Bill.

Let me turn to the period of compliance. Our approach in the Bill accommodates the variation in size and type of fraud investigations that the PSFA is likely to take on. As such, the Bill allows information providers a minimum, critically, of 10 working days to comply. However, in practice, the information notices will be tailored on a case-by-case basis, with each being judged on its merits and with the time period applied appropriately. Similar approaches are used in HMRC. That, in turn, protects the information holder from being asked to produce information in an unreasonable timescale.

On Tuesday, we heard from John Smart, who said:

“Some of the smaller organisations might struggle to meet that 10-day requirement”.

That is why we will be tailoring the requirement. But, he also said,

“I still think it is a reasonable starting point. If you do not start with a reasonable starting point, for the larger organisations you end up deferring decision making and action being taken. I think 10 days is reasonable.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 46, Q81.]

As I said before, that is the minimum.

Again, we will set out the commitment to tailoring to ensure that we are proportionate and reflect the different types of organisations and individuals who might be asked for information in the code of practice or published guidance. Alongside the time period for compliance, an information provider will have the opportunity to request a review, which would include the ability to vary the time period for compliance if it was considered that a longer timeframe was needed. The current drafting outlines a five-layered process for information holders to request a review of an information notice that they have received. I can go through that detail if Committee members want me to, but I hope that that provides some reassurance on hon. Members’ points.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for those points, but I seek a bit more clarification. There are references to “the Minister” in clause 3, and I want to be clear about this, because we talked a lot about the code of practice during the evidence session on Tuesday. Is the Minister saying that the code of practice will have reference to the authorised officers? So, for Hansard, where clause 3 refers to “the Minister”, it is actually more likely, through the code of practice, to be referring to the day-to-day operation of those investigators. The Minister also mentioned that the definition of reasonableness is as per other departmental records and is widely available. Just to clarify, will that also be in the code of practice so that it is easily accessible for anybody in the public to look at what that might include? I seek more clarification on those two points.

[Georgia Gould]

Yes, the code of practice will be much more operational guidance that will be targeted at the authorised officers and their day-to-day operational practice. It will include the information that I have set out.

[Mike Wood]

I think we will come back to this issue at a later stage. I want to see some action on amendment 11 going forward, but, for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Some points of clarity: the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire asked who would do the reviewing. A more senior officer from within the PSFA would complete that review, not the Minister themselves. The entire process would be overseen by a separate team who are accountable to an independent chair, and critically, who will report into Parliament to provide that level of independence.

The other important context is that the Bill also—we will come to this later—provides for the PSFA to become a statutory body, fully independent from the Minister. In the meantime, it is incredibly important that we have this process of oversight and the independent chair, as we discussed. All these issues are important for balance. We have to avoid giving fraudsters the ability to abuse the review process and frustrate investigations. As John Smart told the Committee on Tuesday, months is far too long, and adding a further route to appeal to the tribunal at that very early stage would add months, if not years, to our investigations into suspected frauds. We have tried to balance this very carefully to ensure that there are appropriate routes to review that sit within a system that is independently overseen.

I believe that we have found the right balance in the Bill, and I have explained those layers of review. They include internal review, which is the appropriate route that strikes the right balance between fairness and avoiding fraudsters frustrating the process. As I said, the internal reviewer will be a separate authorised officer, who will be—this is a requirement in clause 66—an authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision maker. The way that these reviews are performed will be subject to oversight/ We will talk later in more detail about the oversight in the Bill, but it will include the inspections by HMICFRS and the day-to-day oversight by an independent chair, which could include live cases.

I explained in the previous debate—I did not go through the detail, but I can do so—the stages of an information notice going through if someone still does not agree that they should provide the information. Ultimately, it is really important that if a penalty is issued for non-compliance, the information provider can appeal to the relevant court against that penalty, so there is a formal appeal to a court at the end of the information-gathering process if it gets to that place. However, the intention of the powers—as I said, this will be written into the code of practice—is very much to work alongside those organisations that are gathering information, and to be proportionate to their size and the requests put forward, so I believe we have found the right balance.

[Mike Wood]

I thank the Minister for those responses, but I think that the first-tier tribunal is perfectly capable of dismissing applications that are without merit, without significantly extending the time. Given the importance of an independent appeal mechanism, I wish to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I can add very little to what the shadow Minister said. Again, I am broadly sympathetic on the need to have these safeguards in the legislation, and on not knowing what the practice notes are. We are very much in the dark, so that does give us cause for concern.

[Georgia Gould]

The critical thing to note here is that we have been very clear in the Bill that 10 days is a minimum. As we heard in evidence, some organisations will find it very easy to provide the information within 10 days; others will find it harder. As I have already set out, we will ensure that responding to different kinds of organisations proportionately is referenced in the code of practice.

I previously explained why we believe that the time limits in the Bill for information requests are appropriate, and why we believe that internal review strikes the right balance in preventing fraudsters from frustrating the process. The current drafting includes powers for authorised officers to vary the duration of an information notice in clause 4. The clause allows an information notice to be varied subject to the outcome of an internal review. A variation of a notice can include amending the timeframe to comply with a request if it is found that a longer timeframe is required.

We have discussed how the Bill allows information-providers a minimum of 10 working days to comply, which in practice will be tailored on a case-by-case basis, with each case judged on its own merits and the time period applied appropriately. This is a similar approach to that taken by HMRC, for example: an authorised officer would take account of the nature of the information or documents required and how easy it will be for the person to provide or produce them. That, in turn, protects the information-holder from not being asked to produce information within an unreasonable timescale. In response to the amendment, I ran through what the reasonable grounds test will be and the kinds of thinking that authorised officers will have to go through to determine what information they will gather. That includes writing it down so that their thought processes in requiring information can be reviewed.

[Steve Darling]

I welcome that reassurance from the Minister, which we will take onboard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Clause 3 introduces a civil power that allows authorised officers to compel information from first and third parties, similar to that used by HMRC. Clause 4 introduces a right to request a review of a decision to issue an information notice within seven days of a notice being issued. The policy intention is that this provides adequate time for an individual or business to request a review of a decision to issue an information notice, and sets a time limit for a review that will balance any attempts that might be made to aggravate the information collection process by slowing down the fraud investigation unnecessarily. During the review process, authorised officers will work with information-holders to give them every opportunity to comply.

[Steve Darling]

The Minister referred to a review process; it would be really helpful if the Committee could be aware of how long that process is likely to take.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 4 gives the Minister a considerable amount of power to compel individuals, as well as organisations, to provide an unspecified range of information within what could be very tight timescales, on pain of a fine of £300 a day if they fail to comply. The only route to appeal these powers is going back to the person or organisation that is exercising them, and we are concerned about the natural justice of this approach.

The legislation, as drafted, involves no impartial third party in the review process on a case-by-case basis, so it leaves individuals with nowhere else to go if they disagree with what is being asked for, or cannot practically comply with the request in the specified timeframe. Our amendments aim to balance these powers, and I am naturally disappointed that the Minister was unable to consider accepting at least some of them.

[Georgia Gould]

First, it is important to set out that these powers will be used by authorised officers who sit within a professional standard. They are highly trained and have a code of ethics that they apply. It is a deliberately limited group of people to ensure that we have full oversight. The kind of decisions that they make will have to be written down, so they can be overseen by the team within the Cabinet Office, which is answerable to the independent chair and to another independent body, and that is likely to be HMICFRS. I think I have already set out, and it is in the Bill, that the reviews on a case-by-case basis will have to be done by another authorised officer who is of a higher grade than the one who made the decision. There will be no set time, but we will set out a range within the wider guidance.

The intention of the Bill is to ensure that we prevent and recover fraud against the public sector. We want to be reasonable and proportionate, and as I have said, we will set out further information about the size and scale of organisations and timeframes within the code of practice. What we really need to avoid is organisations that have committed fraud using appeals to frustrate the process and keep this going for ages, so that money is moved and we lose the ability to recover critical public funds. We think that a huge amount of oversight has been put into this overarching package, but we have to ensure that we allow authorised officers to get the information they need and recover fraud. Finally, it is important to remember that, if we go through a process where somebody does not provide that information, and a fine is levied, they are able to apply to the courts at that point. There is that fundamental backstop to the system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

As the Minister says, the clause will add the Cabinet Office to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Act governs the powers available to the state to obtain communications and communication data, provides statutory safeguards and clarifies what powers different public authorities can use and for what purpose. This legislation will give the Cabinet Office further and greater investigatory powers.

Government amendment 1 seeks to clarify that this applies not to the whole of the Cabinet Office, but to the Public Sector Fraud Authority only. I am glad that the amendment will rectify that fairly major drafting error. Obviously, the Opposition support the amendment.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

I am sorry to have arrived late. Clause 6 will provide essential powers to obtain communications data from telecommunications providers, as and when necessary, as part of an investigation into fraud against the public sector. As a result of the clause, the PSFA will be listed under column 1 of schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and will thereby be granted the power to request communications data—the how, where, what and when, as opposed to the content, of communications—for the purposes of investigating suspected fraud against the public sector. The clause will not give the PSFA surveillance and covert human intelligence powers.

The precise listing of the PSFA in schedule 4 will not permit self-authorisation to use the relevant powers; a request for communications data in the course of a criminal investigation must be approved by the independent Office for Communications Data Authorisations. The powers also come with extra oversight from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which will inspect the designated communications data single point of contact that facilitates the lawful acquisition of communications data and effective co-operation between the IPCO and public authorities that have these powers.

I welcome the Opposition’s support for Government amendment 1, which is necessary to align us with the Home Office’s new approach to restrict powers to specific teams in other Departments within the same schedule. The amendment will change the way the Department appears in schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act, as it will restrict the use of the powers to the Public Sector Fraud Authority only, not the Cabinet Office as a whole. The amendment will ensure that the use of the powers is properly restricted and that there are no unintended consequences for other parts of the Cabinet Office.

I commend clause 6, as amended by Government amendment 1, to the Committee.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 etc powers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Georgia Gould]

Clause 7 and schedule 1 cover the investigative powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Clause 8 will give the PSFA a legal route to apply to a court for an audit in relation to property that has come into its possession in the course of a fraud investigation. Clause 9 will bring the PSFA under the oversight of the Independent Office for Police Conduct for serious complaints about its use of PACE powers.

Clause 7 will designate authorised investigators with the necessary authority to use limited provisions from PACE within the remit of public sector fraud investigations. These include powers to apply to the courts for a warrant to enter and search premises and to seize evidence, and special provisions to apply to the courts to gain access to certain types of material that are regarded as excluded material or special procedure material.

These are criminal investigation powers and will only be used in criminal investigations to enable all reasonable lines of inquiry to be followed and all relevant evidence to be collected. PSFA staff must be specifically authorised by the Minister before they can use the powers in the clause. Authorised investigators will be able to access and process evidence under the same conditions applicable to the police, ensuring that robust investigative protocols are followed. PACE has its own code of practice, and authorised investigators will adhere to the provisions that apply to the PSFA’s PACE powers, in particular PACE code B, which deals with the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure.

Clause 7 is fundamental in reinforcing the Bill’s objective of combating public sector fraud effectively by equipping investigators with powerful investigative tools, governed by long-standing safeguards. The provision of such powers is essential and reflects our commitment to holding to account those who defraud public resources, maintaining the integrity of public administration.

Schedule 1 will modify the provisions of PACE adopted in clause 7 so that they apply to authorised investigators within the PSFA when they are conducting criminal investigations into fraud offences committed against the public sector. Clause 7 will enable these modifications to have effect; they include equating authorised investigators with constables for the relevant sections of PACE, clearly defining the range of their responsibility and authority. An amendment to replace “articles or persons” with “material” in schedule 1 is specifically intended to clarify the scope of investigations conducted by the PSFA. By defining the term more narrowly with reference to “material”, it reflects the fact that the PSFA will not be conducting searches of individuals.

While detailed stipulations regarding the retention and handling of seized material are set out in PACE, schedule 1 will provide the essential adaptations necessary for the authorised investigators to carry out their roles effectively while adhering to established legal safeguards. Overall, schedule 1 is necessary to equip authorised investigators with precise, tailored powers from PACE so that they can enforce the legislative aim of combating fraud within the public sector.

Clause 8 will give the PSFA a legal route to apply to a court for an order in relation to property that has come into its possession in the course of a fraud investigation. The order will determine who the property should be returned to and whether changes need to be made to the property before it is returned or, if appropriate, destroyed, subject to suitable safeguards.

The PSFA will not routinely need to use this power. It will use it only in three specific situations: first, when there is conflicting evidence as to who the property should be returned to; secondly, when it is not possible to return property to its owner, and the PSFA is otherwise liable to retain it indefinitely; or, thirdly, when it has been identified that the property could be used in the commission of an offence. Clause 8 will protect the PSFA in situations in which it could otherwise face having to retain property indefinitely, at ongoing cost to the taxpayer, and where it cannot return the property to its owner. It will ensure effective management and disposal of items, helping to prevent misuse while reducing the administrative burden.

The use of a magistrates court to determine the appropriate course of action is a critical safeguard. This external judicial oversight ensures transparent and lawful disposal decisions. A mandatory six-month waiting period is built into the process before property can be disposed of or destroyed. This period will allow any interested parties to make claims on the property. However, if a magistrates court orders that the property be returned to its owner, there is no waiting period for that return. Further application to court can be made if initial orders do not resolve ownership or disposal issues, ensuring ongoing flexibility and fairness in property management. Equipping the PSFA with these powers is vital for appropriately concluding fraud investigations and reflects similar practices in other Government Departments.

I turn to clause 9. The PSFA’s use of PACE powers will be subject to robust internal and external scrutiny. Elsewhere in the Bill, clauses 64 and 65 set out provisions under which His Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services will work with the PSFA. Clause 9 amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the functions of the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators and enables them specifically to consider the PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. In doing so, this clause enables the IOPC to be engaged where necessary to investigate death, serious injury, accusations of staff corruption or serious complaints against the PSFA’s use of PACE powers, although we hope that none of those will come to be.

The amendments made by clause 9 also include allowing the Minister to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. In practice, this enables the Minister to detail in due course the specific remit of the IOPC in relation to the PSFA. This clause represents a typical approach to engaging the IOPC in legislation, similar to that of other law enforcement agencies.

The clause will also enable the sharing of information between the director general, the Minister and those who act on their behalf. Additionally, it will enable the sharing of information with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to facilitate potential collaborative investigations with the IOPC. The clause will ensure that any information sharing complies with existing data protection and investigatory powers legislation. Incidents and complaints will be either self-referred from the PSFA or referred to the IOPC via a third party. Any potential cases of serious injury or death that occur in the exercise of the PSFA’s PACE powers would be automatically referred to the IOPC for review.

The use of the independent complaints function offered by the IOPC is a key element of the oversight landscape, ensuring that the PSFA is held accountable to the highest standards in the exercise of PACE powers, and providing confidence to the public that the Government take their responsibilities in using the powers seriously. I went through a lot of detail there, but I know that the Committee is concerned about the proper oversight of powers, as it should be.

[Mike Wood]

Clauses 7 to 9 give authorised investigators the powers to enter and search premises and execute search warrants, and powers for the seizure, retention and disposal of property. Those are obviously extensive powers with potentially significant consequences. While strengthening powers to tackle fraud is welcome, we have some concerns. For example, clause 7(3) states:

“An authorised investigator is an individual who is authorised by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this section.”

The clause would extend some PACE powers to authorised investigators at the PSFA to investigate offences of fraud against a public authority.

An authorised investigator is defined as a Cabinet Office civil servant of at least higher executive officer grade. What training will those investigators have in order to carry out their functions appropriately? In evidence earlier this week about public sector investigators, Dr Kassem said:

“Are they trained and do they have the proper skills to enable them to investigate without accusing, for example, innocent people and impacting adversely vulnerable individuals? That would be the main challenge, in my view.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 6, Q2.]

Paragraph 3(2)(b) of schedule 1 states that an authorised investigator may be “a higher executive officer”, which is adding to the positions specified in PACE. The comparable position in the police appears to be specified as

“a police officer of at least the rank of inspector”.

Is the Minister satisfied that a higher executive officer is of equivalent rank and experience to a police inspector? Salary bands would suggest that they are not. A quick search suggests that the starting salary of a higher executive officer may be as little as £38,000, whereas a police inspector in London would typically be on at least £61,000. That suggests that there will be some disparity in the level of seniority that one might expect between the two positions. Is she satisfied that a higher executive officer has the seniority for the very far-reaching powers that the Bill would give them?

Turning to clause 8, it is welcome that there is a role for the magistrates court—we finally have some external oversight—where a Minister must apply to make a decision about an individual’s property.

Clause 9 amends the Police Reform Act 2002 so that an individual may go to the director general with complaints or misconduct allegations in relation to the Public Sector Fraud Authority. However, it appears that there remains discretion for the Minister, who only “may” make regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to public sector fraud investigators and “may” disclose information to the director general. Does the Minister intend to make those regulations? What may they contain? If regulations are made under those provisions, what parliamentary procedure will they be subject to?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As he said, these are important powers, and it is critical that the right training is in place. I reassure him that all these authorised officers will have relevant training to the standard that police officers have for the use of the PACE powers. As he set out in his remarks, an application for search warrants must be made to a magistrate, so there is already an external body ensuring that they will be used correctly.

Another critical component of the PSFA’s use of the powers is that if an authorised officer is visiting a property, they will be accompanied by a police officer and will not go their own, so we have not included powers of arrest because of the nature of the PSFA investigations as separate to the Department for Work and Pensions. The powers sit within a range of safeguards, some of which have been mentioned. To remind Members, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services will also oversee the use of all these powers, as it has experience of doing that. The powers will be overseen in any serious circumstances by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Acting for another public authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate clauses 11 and 12 stand part.

[Georgia Gould]

As I have set out, the Bill provides the key powers to investigate suspected fraud against the public sector. However, to be able to deliver a holistic counter-fraud service and recover vital funds lost to fraud and error, powers are needed to act on behalf of other public authorities for recovery action. That is what clause 10 outlines. The PSFA will already have conducted investigations before the recovery phase and will know the background to the case and the people and businesses involved. It will be able to leverage that information and those relationships to secure recovery, prioritising voluntary repayments first. It will then be able to utilise the proposed recovery powers already used across Government to get back fraudulent funds where people can afford to repay their illicit gains but are refusing to engage with us.

The recovery of fraudulent funds is complex, as is fraud itself. In 2021-22, the Government’s fraud landscape report found that only 23% of fraud losses were recovered. That is not good enough. Having a central recovery function within the PSFA will allow it to develop the expertise and capability required to drive effective recovery action on behalf of other public bodies. Providing the option to keep some of the recovered funds, subject to agreements with the public bodies concerned, helps to fund the development of that recovery expertise and provides value for money for the Government and taxpayer.

Clause 11 outlines the requirement to issue a recovery notice before proceedings can be brought to a court or tribunal. The notice must outline what the Government believe is owed and why. It must also provide information as to how the amount can be voluntarily repaid. Once issued, the liable person has a minimum of 28 days to respond. The recovery notice will effectively signal the end of the PSFA investigation.

During an investigation, a suspected liable person will already have had the opportunity to make their case and provide evidence to support their position. This provides the liable person with further opportunities to positively engage on the matter, either through voluntary repayment or by providing additional evidence. It also provides them with ample opportunity to prepare for a potential future court or tribunal proceeding. The issuing of a recovery notice is therefore an important step that promotes fairness and transparency in proceedings by providing a liable person with an overview of the position.

Clause 12 provides a key safeguard for the use of the recovery powers. During an investigation, the PSFA will collect and assess evidence to determine whether a liable person or business received payments made as a result of fraud or error. It will outline its reasonings in the recovery notice. However, it will be able to use the proposed recovery powers only if a liable person agrees and a court or tribunal has made a final determination of what is owed.

We will not be making unilateral decisions as to what is owed. Instead, this process firmly embeds independent judicial decision making. If a liable person disagrees with the determinations, they can present their case in a court or tribunal. If a liable person agrees, we do not need to seek confirmation from a judge, making important judicial time and cost savings and ensuring that we do not further overburden the judicial system.

Those are all important steps in commencing our recovery action. The positive impact of the Bill is predicated on being able to effectively recover funds identified as being lost to fraud or error. We have already agreed that recovery is a vital new core function of my Department, and it is one that we should strive to ensure can operate effectively to return money lost to fraud and error to the public purse.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 10 allows the Minister for the Cabinet Office to act on behalf of another public authority to recover a recoverable amount, including bringing court or tribunal proceedings, and recovered money will be returned to the other public authority unless it is agreed that the Minister can retain some or all of it. We have some questions about what has to be agreed ahead of time. Can the Minister just act, or do they need prior approval from the public authority beforehand, so that there is clarity about the basis on which the Minister for the Cabinet Office is acting and any division of recovered funds?

Clause 11 sets out the recovery notice that the Minister must give before proceedings can be brought to court or a tribunal, and what is included in it. How is it decided how much can be recovered? What assets are taken into account, and what is the process before the legal system becomes involved?

Clause 12 sets out that the recovery methods can be used only to cover the amount where the liable person agrees or a court or tribunal has determined the amount is recoverable. Where the liable person does not engage, what mechanisms exist to encourage them to do so? Are there penalties if a court or tribunal is involved, and how long is the legal process typically expected to take, given current capacity? What does capacity look like at the moment? We feel that, in principle, the powers could be proportionate, but that depends on how they are to be exercised. I would be very grateful if the Minister clarified some of those points.

[Georgia Gould]

The first point to clarify is that before any investigation and any debt recovery are started, there would be a vulnerability test on that individual, and that would be part of the basis for the decision making. As for whether there was a voluntary agreement about the recovery of debt, a conversation would happen with the individual, but there is a limit to the amount that would be recovered—up to 40% of their assets in their bank account for fraud and 20% for error. In terms of whether people would try to frustrate the process by unnecessarily reviewing it, one of the features of the Bill is that it can include interest on the money that is paid, so that is a disincentive to continue to drag out the process, and the matter can be resolved as quickly as possible—and voluntarily.

On the initial phase of the PSFA’s investigatory and debt recovery work, if there is a limited number of officers, we do not expect a high burden on the court system—we expect less than double digits to be taken through initially—and we believe that the provision around interest is a key disincentive against frustrating the process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)

Procurement Act 2023: Supplier Investigations

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

We will never forget the 72 lives lost as a result of the Grenfell tragedy, and we are grateful to Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Grenfell inquiry team for publishing the hugely important phase 2 report into the tragedy.

In line with the Prime Minister’s statement in response to the publication of that report, we have reviewed the report to identify where the inquiry found failings by specific named organisations in relation to the Grenfell fire on 14 June 2017. I can announce today our intention to launch investigations into seven organisations using new debarment powers in the Procurement Act 2023. These investigations will establish whether the organisations have engaged in professional misconduct for the purposes of that Act.

The organisations we intend to investigate immediately are: Arconic Architectural Products SAS; Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd, in relation to the actions of Celotex Limited—which it owned at the relevant time—Exova (UK) Ltd; Harley Facades Ltd; Kingspan Insulation Ltd; Rydon Maintenance Ltd; and Studio E Architects Ltd.

These organisations will be notified when an investigation is launched under the new Act. Investigations into other organisations may be launched in due course and affected organisations will be notified accordingly.

The review process so far has been conducted under current laws that govern public procurement in the UK. However, those laws were on 24 February 2025 replaced, through a major reform of procurement legislation, with the new Procurement Act 2023.

We will make early use of the new powers in this Act that enable us to take stronger and broader action in relation to supplier misconduct, which we will, where appropriate, utilise to effectively hold organisations to account. The new Act allows us to investigate suppliers and, if certain grounds are met, to add their names to a published and centrally managed debarment list, which must be taken into account by contracting authorities in awarding new contracts and undertaking new procurements.

We want to act swiftly and decisively, and we are committed, where appropriate, to pursuing meaningful action in respect of failings related to the Grenfell tragedy. Today’s announcement marks an important step towards that.

[HCWS474]

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting)

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

Q Thank you. I will just ask one more question; I am interested in your views on societal attitudes to fraud. Clearly, we have seen a significant increase in fraud and error within the DWP since the pandemic, with around £35 billion lost in total and upwards of £7 billion lost to fraud last year alone. We hear an awful lot about the changing attitudes that people have towards fraud. Is that something that you have seen, recognised and acknowledged? Are there other drivers that you think are behind those increased numbers?

Dr Kassem: Yes, I have seen that in the literature, but not in practice yet. I think the way to go forward with that is by education and raising awareness about fraud and its impact, because those individuals committing fraud do not see the harm there. They see the Government as having lots of money in a rich country. They see themselves as entitled as well—more than others—and they take their fair share, or they might do it out of revenge, ideology or coercion, perhaps. There are lots of motivations for them to do that. Educating them about why this is wrong and what would be the consequences of committing fraud can help to reduce fraud over the long term and raise awareness about it. Equally important is training staff in public authorities about fraud, what it means and how to detect it. Prevention is better than a cure. Again, those have to go hand in hand. Yes, there has to be an investigation and a deterrent to discourage people from doing it, and this Bill is an excellent step in doing so.

However, if you produce the Bill, with untrained staff members who are not able to identify fraud criminals individually or organisationally, it will not really work. Preventing fraud requires a holistic approach. You cannot focus on prevention alone or on enhancing accountability alone, or on deterrence or investigation. Everything needs to work together, and education plays an important part internally in public sectors and externally across the public.

Professor Button: I have recently done some research where we replicated a study from 10 years ago. We sought a representative sample of the population and their attitudes to various deviant behaviours, including benefits fraud, and we found there was a significant decline in honesty. I think there are changes that are particularly pronounced among younger people. It has been driven by a whole range of factors, not least it is much easier to be dishonest now. If you go back 20 or 30 years, if you wanted to apply for a loan or a credit card you had to go to a bank. Now you just do it online on a computer. It is much easier to engage in dishonest behaviours in those types of ways.

The other thing is that social media and different types of forums provide opportunities for people to discuss how to engage in dishonest behaviour. I am doing some research at the moment about online refund fraud. We have been going into forums where a wide range of individuals discuss how to defraud retailers and get refunds for stuff that they have bought online. I strongly suspect that that kind of thing is probably also going on for benefits fraud. All of those factors are making it much easier, so I think there is a much more significant challenge for not just the public sector, but private sector organisations in dealing with fraud because of that.

Professor Levi: There is a lot of scope for unchallenged behaviour. Who gets challenged by people? If you do not have face-to-face relationships, the opportunities for moral education are much fewer. Personally, I think there needs to be a lot more in schools, but there is a lack of capacity in the schools curriculum for that kind of thing. Also, there should be more about how to avoid being a victim and discussions about money muling and so on. There is a broader spectrum of behaviours where people can get involved in fraud that we need to look at collectively.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

Q Thanks for bringing your significant experience to this discussion. My question builds on Dr Rasha Kassem’s point about the importance of oversight. That is something that we have taken very seriously in drafting the Bill and trying to ensure that independent oversight is built into every part. I am interested in the assessment of all the witnesses of the level of oversight that is built in. As we develop further work, guidance and training, is there anything we need to think about to continue to strengthen that?

Professor Button: If you look at this in the broader context of hybrid policing bodies, which is one of my areas of study—non-police bodies that engage in a whole range of enforcement functions—what is being proposed in terms of the accountability of this body compared with, say, the Health and Safety Executive, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and some of the many other different types of enforcement bodies is certainly on a par with, if not better, than some of those organisations, with the inspection, the complaints body that people have access to and the additional measures in place.

One of the crucial areas is obviously when you get to prosecutions. With the Post Office scandal, we have seen the challenges if you have too much control over prosecution as well. The Department for Work and Pensions does use the Crown Prosecution Service, but with the lesser sanctions, it might be an issue to have more accountability, where you have that situation, to avoid excessive use of those penalties in a very negative way. That is possibly the only area where I would see an issue. Otherwise, the accountability measures are very similar to the many other hybrid enforcement bodies that central Government have.

[Georgia Gould]

Q On the PSFA side, in order to recover debt, you would have to apply to a court. Does that answer that point or is there more to be done?

Professor Button: Yes, I think that does. That is fine.

Professor Levi: His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has been pretty tough on fraud policing by the police, so I am personally encouraged by the proposal for accountability and review by them. It is reasonably rigorous and scientific, and there is the National Audit Office as well. Following on from Professor Button’s comments, sampling behaviours at all levels is a good methodology for testing. The question that Dr Kassem was raising earlier about the internal stuff and the supervision of that is a more complex example.

Dr Kassem: My suggestion was more about having an independent oversight board—independent from the PSFA—to review the work and also perhaps to support an independent audit of the operation and see whether the Bill is actually working in terms of recovery and of transparency and fairness. Someone might say, “Okay, we need someone from the PSFA on the board to feed back about operational tasks and challenges and so on.” That is fair enough, but that could slightly reduce the independence that we are talking about. It can still produce a report to describe the work, the performance and the challenges that it met, and a completely independent board can then oversee the work and challenge and scrutinise it if needed.

[Georgia Gould]

Q The proposal is to have an independent chair that is completely independent of the PSFA and reports into Parliament. Do you think that answers that point?

Dr Kassem: Yes.

[Georgia Gould]

It is really reassuring to hear that because oversight is incredibly important to us. I have one more question, but I am happy to give way to others.

[Andrew Western]

Q May I come back in on the specific point of independent oversight as it pertains to the DWP element? Obviously, we intend to put in place an independent person to oversee the eligibility verification measure and then HMICFRS on both search and seizure and information gathering. Are you satisfied with that proposal for independent oversight on the DWP side, or are there things that you would ask us to consider beyond that?

Dr Kassem: Personally, I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.

Professor Button: The only thing I would add on the DWP is that it is likely to be much more resource-intensive. There are likely to be a lot more cases. Having an appropriate capacity is important for that.

Professor Levi: I agree with that. Historically, in relation to asset forfeiture, say, the problem has been one of excessive caution rather than too much activity. A lot of legal challenges remain. I was on the Cabinet Office Committee that set that up, and there can be too much governance of that, so there is a tension between having a lot of governance in place and saying, “Look, can we get on with it?”

[Rebecca Smith]

Q I will come in briefly, because I am conscious of the time. I was interested in what Professor Button was talking about—encouraging people to commit fraud, and the rise of online videos, TikTok and all that sort of thing—and I wonder whether you think that the Bill does enough to allow for going after people who choose do that. In essence, that is a fraud in itself. Also, is this a good example of where the distinction between fraud and error blurs? If there is no education about what fraud is, and people are watching lots of social media videos on how to defraud things, does that become error or is it fraud? I am interested in whether we are, inadvertently, not tackling the root issues through the Bill, and whether there is anything that we could do to make it tougher.

Professor Button: It is important to tackle those areas. I am not sure whether it is something that needs to go in the Bill. I think it is more an issue of giving the body the capacity to go after those types of individuals and to work with other relevant policing agencies— I suspect that that would need to be the case—to deal with it, rather than saying such things in law. We have the Online Safety Act 2023, which covers a lot of areas. Is that useful enough? Are the Fraud Act 2006 and the historical offence of conspiracy to engage in fraud appropriate, or do we need to create a new, specific offence of, say, promoting social security fraud online? I would not like to comment on that; it is probably something that needs more thought. The key thing is more enforcement, and disrupting forums where that kind of discussion is taking place.

Professor Levi: There is also the issue of signalling to people where the boundaries lie. This is an issue not so much for the Bill, but for enforcement practice across the board. We need some condign activities that communicate to people via social media, as well as in the old media that we may read, what is acceptable, and what is and is not legal. The National Crime Agency has been pretty good about that in the cyber-crime area, in trying to educate people and to divert them away from crime. There are some good lessons across that. It is also a question of resource and how many such things people can deal with.

[Georgia Gould]

Q In your experience of researching fraud, how does this Bill compare to international best practice? Should we be considering anything else that you have seen that particularly works in other places?

Professor Levi: The Americans used to be better at this than may have been the case in the past few weeks. The General Accounting Office and some of the inspectorates general in the US have been pretty active, but the US still had a huge amount of covid-19 fraud. Australia is getting better. Clearly, the head of the Public Sector Fraud Authority is part of this group of people trying to improve things, but I would say we are starting at a pretty modest level, in terms of numbers of people. In terms of the DWP, it is a struggle for everyone. We have to look at it in relation to general welfare. I remember going to a meeting and talking to some French delegates who said to me that it was about—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for this panel. I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence. We will move to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Helena Wood gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Q We just heard that serious organised fraud is considered to be only 10% of what is taken from the Department at the moment. Do you think that the measures to give DWP investigators power of entry, search and seizure are the right approach to tackling that 10% of serious organised fraud that exists?

Helena Wood: Absolutely; the point was well made in previous evidence that the police simply do not have the resources to look at fraud against consumers, never mind to support DWP, so I think it is entirely necessary to extend those powers of search and seizure to DWP as well. Again, I keep coming back to the broader context: there are other powers. We should not assume that this Bill is the sole answer. It has taken a very civil lens, quite necessarily, on what is a huge-volume crime, which cannot be dealt with simply through a criminal justice response alone. We have to save that criminal justice response for use in a surgical way, for the really high-end cases, particularly in an organised crime sense. We should not be seeing it as an either/or.

What I would not like to see from this is the replacement of the necessary deterrent of a criminal investigation and prosecution with pure use of civil measures. We need to use that full suite of powers beyond this Bill, including those in existing legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and standard issue fraud criminal prosecutions. Something that I would like to see from the independent oversight is that we do not lose that criminal thread. We have to keep prosecuting where necessary, and providing that necessary deterrent through all the available means, not just the ones available in this Bill.

[Georgia Gould]

Q You mentioned that the PSFA powers are used generally, but they have not been available to tackle fraud in the public sector outside of tax and welfare. What is your assessment of bringing those powers into this space? How effective will they be at tackling public sector fraud?

Helena Wood: This is a really necessary approach. However, I would caution that we are holding off from establishing the PSFA as a statutory body for now, and I completely understand the reasons for that: we are in a very tight fiscal environment, the cost of setting up a new agency is substantial, and we need to test the competence of the PSFA in doing so. However, I think in due course we need a more fixed timeline to move the PSFA off into a statutory body, to at least remove any perception—if not actual political interference—in investigations. That is really important—we need a stronger timetable. I know that will happen when the time is right, but I would like to see a stronger timetable towards it. I think there will be at least a perceived risk of Executive overreach if the PSFA does not move in that direction more quickly.

[Georgia Gould]

Q Obviously, the provision in the Bill is to move the PSFA to be a statutory body, but as we were discussing earlier, built in for the current period is the oversight of an independent chair. Does that offer reassurance of that oversight in the meantime?

Helena Wood: There is a question of “Who guards the guards?” in some respect. This Bill has significantly built in oversight; I think at every step we see that. However, it depends who the independent chair is, and a question would be whether that individual could be subject to a parliamentary approval process, as other oversight positions are—particularly if we look at the National Audit Office model, for example. It might be good to build in a parliamentary approval process for the individual who will take that role.

[Georgia Gould]

Q You also talked about the importance of training. Part of the reason that we are starting off quite small is because the PSFA has broader powers than those under the DWP part of the Bill—for example, with the powers to levy fines, there will be authorised officers who have training and who have to apply to courts to use search warrants and so on. What are your thoughts on how we ensure that that training means that those 24 officers have the necessary expertise to be able to take on these powers?

Helena Wood: That is a really good question, which deserves more considered thought. These are people who have not gone through the police training process, for example.

I wonder if it is worth considering whether we make use of the powers contingent on being a financial investigator, as accredited under the Proceeds of Crime Act. However, I make that suggestion with some caution, knowing that in a practical sense there is a national shortage of financial investigators across the country. We are haemorrhaging these individuals; we train them up in the public sector and they go straight out to be poached by the financial sector, and probably to respond to some of these measures set out in the Bill. I say this with some caution, however, as that is a properly accredited and overseen process of skills. We need to look carefully about who exercises those powers and whether they need to do an analogous police training programme. I think there is some consideration of the professionalising investigations programme, although they cannot be officially credited over time—they will not be using the powers as frequently as that process would require.

Those are the parts of the Bill I would like to see strengthened in some way. It is perhaps incumbent on the Government to look at what the other routes are beyond a financial investigator to ensure the right level of competence in using what are very intrusive powers.

[Andrew Western]

Briefly, on the question of efficacy and scale, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has powers at the moment to request information from banks en masse. Given the experience we have within Government of doing that, and from what I can see, the lack of problem with it, I wonder whether you feel—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Q I am particularly interested in the work that the NHS serious fraud team is already doing. What specific challenges do you currently face in investigating fraud and recovering money that the Bill will help? Do you think there are gaps in what is being proposed that could be tweaked or amended?

Alex Rothwell: If we take the view that fraud has already happened—I have spoken about prevention, but once a fraud has happened and we have discovered it—there are increasingly limited opportunities to pursue criminal investigations. Although we maintain a strong investigative capability that deals with more serious types of criminality, we know about the challenges in the criminal justice system—the disclosure burden is high, it is incredibly expensive to run criminal investigations, and often they take eight years or longer to reach fruition—so we are increasingly looking at how else we can deal with fraud when it is presented to us.

In many ways, it is the low-value, high-volume cases that we see that are more challenging, where we are perhaps seeking to recover funds from someone who has taken £5,000, as I mentioned earlier. This is where I have the most interest in the Bill, because I think we would seek to use those powers extensively, and of course every penny that we recover is money that will be well spent in the NHS. I do not necessarily see any gaps in this particular legislation. There are elements of the work that we do in the national health service where we would benefit from some more powers, but the focus here is obviously on the Bill, rather than on our own ability. A lot of that would apply to how we access medical records, for example.

[Georgia Gould]

Q You have talked a little about the kind of police pressures that exist. I would be interested in both of your assessments, given your experience, of the police’s capacity and ability to investigate public sector fraud, and whether that means there is more of a need for civil powers.

Alex Rothwell: If we look across other international jurisdictions, we see that law enforcement agencies often have quite distinctive public sector fraud or crime functions—for example, the FBI has an extensive healthcare fraud capacity. The way policing has evolved over the last 20 or 30 years, particularly with an emphasis on drug supply, knife crime and firearms, has meant there is little capacity in policing to tackle public sector fraud, and of course there is an ever-present terrorism threat, which is changing rapidly. There is also safeguarding, with the National Crime Agency having quoted publicly the figures in terms of people who are a risk to children, for example.

One of the challenges is that even if you invest more in fraud capability, when a crisis happens, whether that is because of public order or some other form of crisis, policing has to flex more than other investigations. Inevitably, crimes like fraud are perhaps easier to put on hold for a time. Certainly since 2018 we have seen a gradual professionalisation and an increasing capability in the public sector, which I endorse. We could invest more in the police, but my concern is that there will continue to be crises that affect policing that will impact the ability of policing to support the public sector in the way that is required.

Kristin Jones: I agree with everything that Alex just said. The same applies to prosecution: if you have specialist prosecutors, where the resource is ringfenced, they do not get dragged away, but if you have them in with other prosecutors, it depends on what the pressure is at any particular time as to what resource is going to be given to fraud prosecutions.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

Q We have talked about the increased public acceptability of fraud, and attitudes towards that, and indeed the social-media guides that are out there—the “how to” guides—that present it as a victimless crime. Along with improvements to investigative powers, what will the Bill’s very existence do to change that public narrative?

Alex Rothwell: One thing that we have always struggled to do is put a value on deterrence, because it is quite hard to say categorically that someone has not done something because of a change in approach to something. However, it is my view that, once it is known that there are increased powers in this space and that individuals will be pursued for funds, we will see some behaviour change. We could potentially quantify that, but the challenge is directly relating it to the Bill, particularly if you introduce other measures at the same time. I think there will be a powerful deterrent effect if it is exercised correctly and at scale and the public can see the benefits.

Kristin Jones: I agree. If people know there is an increased likelihood that they will be detected, that will have an effect. It is also important to use similar means to get the right narrative across about what you should and should not be doing.

[Georgia Gould]

Q I am interested in the point you made about future-proofing against future pandemics or crises. Can you both give us your reflections on what you learned from the covid pandemic? Do you feel the Bill addresses what we need to do to ensure that we do not end up with the level of fraud we saw during the pandemic?

Kristin Jones: We have to plan for emergencies—they will, inevitably, occur—and the work on that should be kept up to date so that you can refer back to one you prepared earlier. That is so important because when there is an emergency, everybody is doing their best to get through it as fast as they can, and that is not the time for slow consideration, whereas having been through that experience, now is the time to reflect and document what we are going to do in future.

Alex Rothwell: Fundamentally it is about the loosening of controls, our understanding of the impact of the loosening of controls, and the friction that is or is not introduced when you are addressing an emergency. We also now have a much better understanding of how that can manifest itself. But I am confident that the Bill would enable an effective response.

[Georgia Gould]

Q What do you see as the biggest current threats in terms of fraud against the public sector and—if we have time—how does the Bill address them?

Alex Rothwell: From my perspective it is the digital footprint that is left and our ability to analyse that at scale. Very few transactions, if any, take place that do not have a digital or electronic footprint of some kind. The data sharing and our capability to analyse that data is the most important factor. The Bill goes some way to addressing that, but obviously elements of the Bill are about responding to fraud once it has happened. That, for me, is the biggest challenge. But on top of that are the safeguards that we put in place to ensure that our interpretation of that analysis is also correct.

[Georgia Gould]

So the other half—the prevention side—has to accompany this.

Alex Rothwell: Absolutely.

[Georgia Gould]

I very much agree.

Kristin Jones: Increasingly in society today knowing what the truth is, with the amount of data and false information out there, can be the problem.

[Andrew Western]

Q Alex, I have a final question regarding what you said earlier about the level of fraud you have seen remaining fairly static but you have increased your prevention measures. Which of the new measures you have stepped up have been particularly effective?

Alex Rothwell: Data analysis has been particularly effective, as has getting better at recording and reporting—for example, we now have a ubiquitous case recording system that exists across the national health service. The greatest value we have seen so far has been in improved data analysis on large datasets that exist on, for example, national contracting. That is where the value lies in future.

[Georgia Gould]

Q Is the partnership with the PSFA that already exists working well?

Alex Rothwell: Yes, it is. As I mentioned, the professionalisation of fraud specialists has made huge inroads in terms of the acceptability of fraud professionals, particularly in a finance environment—we deal with audit committees and so on—and there is also the recognition that the Government are taking fraud seriously. That is not just this Government but the previous one as well. The direction we have had from the Cabinet Office—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Anna Hall and Christy McAleese gave evidence.

National Procurement Policy Statement

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

Today the Government are publishing a national procurement policy statement that sets out our priorities for public procurement and maximises the impact of every pound spent. This will come into effect alongside the commencement of the Procurement Act 2023 on Monday 24 February. The Government are determined to ensure that the £400 billion of public money spent on public procurement annually delivers economic growth, supports small businesses, champions innovation, and creates good jobs and opportunities across the country.

For too long, small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary, community and social enterprises have been held back by Government procurement processes that are too slow, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Therefore, today, the Government are also announcing new measures to support the transformation of public procurement and deliver on the Government’s plan for small businesses.

New rules will require all Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies to set three-year targets for direct spend with SMEs (from 1 April 2025) and VCSEs (from 1 April 2026) and publish progress annually. On top of this, regular spot checks will ensure smaller companies in the supply chain are paid within 30 days. This builds on previous interventions in the Budget that require Government Departments to exclude suppliers from bidding for major contracts if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment of invoices. We will be reforming the way social value is taken into account in central Government procurement, streamlining the current model to focus on delivery of our missions, and taking forward new standards on fair work in support of our growth mission.

The new national procurement policy statement sets out an expectation for the public sector to maximise procurement spend with SMEs and VCSEs. It sets out how early market engagement and collaboration combined with a clear pipeline of projects can help deliver this. To support local businesses the Government have listened to concerns from local authorities and are working to implement changes to allow them to reserve competitions for low-value contracts for local small businesses and social enterprises.

A new commercial innovation hub will foster procurement innovation by trialling new approaches to service design and procurement. Delivering on the commitment in the blueprint for modern digital government, we will explore establishing a digital commercial centre of excellence bringing together digital and commercial expertise to make it possible to buy once and well, and to open up opportunities for small and medium businesses to work on digital transformation.

This Government are clear that we want the value of contracts to go into delivering for citizens, and are making changes to deliver value for money in procurement through stronger expectations around commercial capability and contract management. A new online register of commercial agreements will increase visibility of frameworks and fees, curbing excessive profits. We will deploy new artificial intelligence commercial tools to cut bureaucracy, boost productivity, and free up commercial staff for higher-value tasks.

To build on this progress, the Government will consult on further reforms to our public procurement processes to drive economic growth, support small businesses, and better support innovation. This consultation is intended to inform the development of primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.

The Government will update their sourcing playbook and consult on introducing a new public interest test for contracting authorities to assess, at the outset of a procurement process, whether work should be outsourced or if it could be done more effectively, and drive better value for money, in house. This will strengthen market stewardship in procurement and ensure there is a rigorous evaluation of the broader public interest of in-house, outsourced or hybrid delivery models, ensuring that decisions properly reflect long-term value for taxpayers and are aligned with Government priorities.

This transformative package of reform ensures public procurement delivers real benefits for taxpayers, businesses and communities alike. By setting ambitious targets for small business spend and aligning social value with our missions, we are driving economic growth, strengthening supply chains, and fostering innovation. By maximising the power of public procurement, we will fuel job creation around the country, drive local and national outcomes and ensure that every pound spent delivers the maximum value for the people of this country.

[HCWS449]

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and Other Amendments) Regulations 2025

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and Other Amendments) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell, for what is my first Delegated Legislation Committee.

This statutory instrument represents the final legislative step in implementing the Procurement Act 2023, which introduces a new public procurement regime responsible for over £385 billion in public contracts annually. The new regime, set to come into force on 24 February 2025, aligns with our mission-driven approach and supports the Prime Minister’s commitment to economic growth by establishing a simpler and more transparent system.

In order to fully implement the Procurement Act, we must first ensure that procurement references in other pieces of legislation are updated to align with the new regime. The draft regulations make the consequential amendments that are a routine aspect of implementing primary legislation. They also make necessary updates to the schedules to the Procurement Act to ensure compliance with our international obligations. They amend schedule 9 to the Procurement Act to update the list of specified international agreements that identify treaty state suppliers for the purposes of the Act. The amendments will update the UK’s market access coverage in our trade agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania, removing access to contracts for healthcare services and enabling the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023, introduced in January last year, to work as intended.

Further technical amendments include updating the list of central Government authorities in the Procurement Act. In addition to those technical adjustments, the draft instrument enhances transparency in public procurement. It also updates how key performance indicators are handled in contract details and performance notices. Finally, it outlines how to calculate whether the sale of excess electricity, gas or water, produced as a by-product of another non-utility activity, falls under the Act where the operator wants to sell it to a network.

In summary, the draft regulations are essential to ensure that the existing legislative framework functions as intended, while facilitating a transparent, efficient and effective public procurement regime. The final legislative step in implementing the 2023 Act will strengthen the system for public procurement across the UK, benefiting businesses, taxpayers and the public sector. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in supporting and approving the regulations today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I am delighted to engage in my first such debate with the hon. Gentleman. We are absolutely clear that the Procurement Act and the new national procurement policy statement have to support economic growth, small and medium-sized businesses and innovation. I have been engaging heavily with SMEs and the message they have given is that they can find Government procurement as it is slow and burdensome, and they often do not feel that they have a place at the table. I believe that the changes we have made to the NPPS strengthen the commitment to small businesses that is absolutely at the heart of our agenda.

The hon. Gentleman referenced the Employment Rights Bill. Obviously, that is a completely different piece of legislation and is not relevant to today’s regulations, but decent jobs are really important in supporting economic growth. The Procurement Act is very much focused on growth and supporting SMEs, and that is what we will take forward. I am happy to have further discussions on the other points he raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Outsourcing: Government Departments

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

This is my first time responding to a Westminster Hall debate, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I join many Members in expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his contribution, and I echo the comments that have been made about his constructive and thoughtful work on this issue.

Many Members had only a short time to set out their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that four minutes was not quite enough, given his 29 years’ experience. That far surpasses my few months, so I would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with any colleagues across the House. Critical issues were raised about a whole range of public services, and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Members ahead of putting forward the new national procurement policy statement.

I join many Members in paying tribute to the work of outsourced staff—the security guards, cleaners and catering teams—who play a vital role in supporting Government and who allow all of us to do our jobs. They serve the public and the public sector, and are, in the case of the security teams, the front door to Government. Whether staff are directly employed or contracted, they are engaging in vital public services, and these should be decent jobs with progression routes, as we have heard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is right to raise the topic of outsourcing. As the Government set out in our plan to make work pay, we need to learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion and more effectively manage markets to ensure the right mix of provision. That means ending the previous Administration’s dogmatic drive to privatise our public services.

I was interested to hear the comments about ideology, having watched for the last 14 years as an ideologically driven approach led to waste, poor value for money and, in some cases, poor public services—for example, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referenced the failed outsourcing of probation services. We must ensure that all contracts are transparent and accountable and provide value for money for the British taxpayer.

I was surprised to hear the comments about progress. Like the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I have a background in local government—I think we both have a background at Camden council. While I was in local government, I saw billions wasted on PPE, and I saw the waste of the test and trace contract, when those of us in local government knew that public health officials and housing staff were ready to go out and do that work. Yet, so much money went to private providers, and I saw the ballooning cost of consultants.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) referenced children’s homes. The new Government have had to step in to end the exploitative practice of some private sector organisations making excessive profits from services for vulnerable children. Under the previous Government, we saw a significant increase in privately run children’s homes, with a Competition and Markets Authority report suggesting that the 15 largest children’s home providers make an average 23% profit per year. Is that value for money? This Government have shone a light on those profits, set a new cap and given Ofsted new powers to investigate and impose fines for exploitative practices.

As the leader of a council, I saw how insourced public services, when managed carefully over time, with robust assessment of benefits and outcomes, can deliver savings for taxpayers and better public services. During covid, I saw how our in-house repairs service immediately moved to delivering food, often volunteering to work long hours to support residents. I saw the pride and commitment that came from working for the council, and the greater flexibility and innovation that that could bring. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that there is huge innovation in the public sector.

As we saw under the previous Government, outsourced services can too often deliver a race to the bottom on quality and standards, and a self-defeating approach that harms taxpayers and value for money. This Government are determined to deliver good public services and better value for money. That includes making decisions about how to deliver services to avoid the waste we saw under the previous Government. We have already begun to deliver reform of the frameworks for outsourcing, with provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen and reinstate the two-tier code introduced under the last Labour Government. The new Procurement Act will come into effect next month, creating a simpler and more flexible procurement system underpinned by a new mission-focused national procurement policy statement.

I did not recognise the comments made about that work. I have engaged deeply with SMEs, businesses, the voluntary sector, social enterprise, contracting authorities, trade unions and a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the NPPS delivers our missions for the country, with growth at the heart of what we want to achieve. The statement will set out the Government’s policy priorities, and contracting authorities will have to have regard to it when carrying out procurements. That will be the first step to ending the last Government’s ideological fixation with outsourcing. I am pleased to say that the statement is almost complete, as we continue to have those conversations, and I look forward to laying it before both Houses shortly.

I want to respond directly to the points made about outsourcing. I agree with the position of Christina McAnea and Unison, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, that a public interest test should be in place before services are outsourced, to ensure value for money and the best outcomes. The NPPS will set out how we plan to make it easier for public authorities to test the best possible model to provide value for money and outcomes for the taxpayer, and end the ideological presumption on outsourcing.

Through these measures, the Government will achieve greater value for money for the people and businesses of this country, moving away from relying on a few large suppliers and being more open to investment across the country in the areas that need it most. Key to that is supporting SMEs. I hear so often from SMEs that they find engaging with Government procurement complex and burdensome. Part of the work we want to do involves diversifying the providers that come forward, whether that is SMEs, social enterprises or voluntary sector organisations.

We have also begun to assess the areas of Government that could be done more effectively in house, and where there may be compelling reasons for Government to develop their own capabilities and capacity to deliver good value for money and better public services. Again, I welcome a wider discussion of that. That work will recognise the practical hurdles to building Government capacity, particularly in a constrained fiscal environment, and when many public services are under huge strain. Having brought a number of services in house in local government, I know that it can be very powerful and save money, but it also takes time, planning and investment. The lead-in times on procurement are significant, and there is no quick fix. However, active work is happening on those critical issues.

We are clear that we will end the last Government’s tunnel vision on large-scale outsourcing and consider the best way to achieve our missions and the best outcomes for citizens. As I have set out, we want to see more diversity, including social enterprises, co-ops, mutuals, voluntary sector organisations and SMEs. We will use the measures in the Procurement Act to open up procurement to that more diverse supply base. Hon. Members spoke of ensuring that we have the right capacity to manage contracts, as well as transparency throughout the process, and that will be at the core of the work we are leading.

We are clear that public sector procurement is an important engine of growth for the economy and that there are purpose-driven businesses providing good-quality jobs. However, as we have heard from some surveys, there is poor practice across the economy. That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill to increase standards and ensure there are decent jobs, not just as part of Government contracts, but across the economy. I do not have a huge amount of time, and I will not go through all the measures, but they address some of the questions put to me today. The provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code through regulations and a statutory code of practice, which is critical.

I end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for bringing forward this issue. As we work on the new NPPS, his insights and those of all those here are very welcome, and I am open to ideas from every part of the House. Close to £400 billion is spent on public procurement, which is a huge amount, and we need to ensure that it provides growth and opportunity across the country. We should use procurement to ensure that there are good jobs for our citizens in every community. Whenever we decide to spend taxpayers’ money, it is right that we make an assessment of what will deliver the best outcomes for citizens and value for money. Unlike the last Government, we will never put ideology before people.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for her debut performance in Westminster Hall.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered outsourcing by Government departments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to reduce fraud in the public sector.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

Yesterday, the Government announced ambitious new legislation to take action on fraud, updating the Department for Work and Pensions’ powers for the first time in 20 years and introducing new powers to take on high-value fraud across the wider public sector. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced the biggest welfare fraud and error budget in recent history. Under the last Government, fraud spiralled out of control, but we are determined to protect every pound of taxpayers’ money.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. One of the biggest scandals that we saw under the last Conservative Government was Ministers giving out dodgy covid contracts to their friends and donors. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that there will never again be a repeat of that shameful behaviour and that where the public have been defrauded, we will get our money back?

[Georgia Gould]

My hon. Friend, as a local government leader during the pandemic, will know how hard things were for communities; sacrifices were made and people risked their lives to keep the rest of us safe. He will share my anger at those who used the national crisis to steal billions from the taxpayer. We will take action on that where the last Government failed. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which was introduced yesterday, will give the Government tough new powers to investigate and recover money stolen from the public and will double the time we have to bring those fraudsters to justice.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What steps he is taking to reform public procurement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

Under this Government, public procurement will be laser focused on delivering our missions and value for money for the taxpayer. The Procurement Act 2023 will commence in February, creating a simpler, more flexible procurement regime underpinned by a new mission-led national procurement policy statement. I really welcome the wide interest of hon. Members from across the House in this work and that of so many small businesses, social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations. I look forward to bringing forward the NPPS to support small and medium-sized enterprises, tackle waste and deliver on our missions.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I am so pleased to hear about the national procurement policy statement next month. As well as encouraging buying British, there are huge opportunities to use procurement to encourage growth and local supply chains, such as in floating offshore wind in Cornwall, as well as in other industries. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a bold procurement policy that will ensure economic growth in every corner of our country, even as far down as Cornwall?

[Georgia Gould]

I welcomed the conversation last week with my hon. Friend, who talked me through the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to growth in Truro and Falmouth. A lot of small businesses I have spoken to say the same thing: it can be too complex and slow to bid for Government contracts, sometimes those contracts come out too late and sometimes they cannot get on the playing field. We have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend and others have to say on these issues, and we will bring forward an NPPS that delivers for SMEs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Unbelievably, the Treasury Committee has already raised concerns about the Office for Value for Money, citing issues around its remit, cost, cross-Government duplication and more, which could be expressed concisely as fears around the value for money of Labour’s new Office for Value for Money. Does the Minister agree with the financial markets, which do not believe this Government’s commitment to reforming public procurement or to prudent financial management, which is why they have added a Reeves ratio to the UK Government’s debt, costing taxpayers an extra £10 billion a year?

[Georgia Gould]

Yesterday, the National Audit Office published a report on the almost £50 billion gap in building maintenance. That is the legacy that the last Government left us: crumbling buildings, 15 years of lost wage growth and stalled productivity. Compare that with this Government’s record in just the past six months: £63 billion investment at the UK investment summit and leading the way on artificial intelligence. The International Monetary Fund upgraded our growth to the fastest in Europe. The Opposition might want to run down this country, but we are determined to grow our economy.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

T3. The Government were elected on a promise to buy, make and sell more in Britain. What action is the Minister taking to prioritise UK manufacturing and UK-made steel in public procurement for energy and defence products on national security grounds, as is allowed by the World Trade Organisation?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

I welcome the recent conversation with my hon. Friend on this important matter. The Government’s industrial strategy outlines the importance of manufacturing in the defence industry to economic growth and national security. The new national procurement policy statement will put growth at the heart of procurement and will align to our industrial strategy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

T7. Innovation lies at the heart of our five missions. I would like to ask the Minister about her reflections on seeing innovation when she visited Milton Keynes recently and how we can take it forward across the country.

[Georgia Gould]

It was wonderful to visit Milton Keynes and to see the work of a pioneering Labour council. The work the Labour council has led to open up services to the NHS is a real example of the shift to community that the Government are committed to. Milton Keynes shows that when a wonderful MP works with a Labour council and the NHS amazing things can happen.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

With impending decisions on airport expansions across the south of England, communities in my constituency, including Flamstead and Markyate, are very worried, not only because the evidence about economic growth is quite low but because the Climate Change Committee has said that the impact on the climate would be rather large. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will be listening to the Government’s own advisers and will have a UK-wide capacity management framework before any airport expansion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Public sector procurement is a fantastic way to drive productivity, innovation and local value in public services, but too often, small businesses, start-ups and voluntary service providers in Newcastle tell me they have difficulty accessing public sector contracts; they do not have as many lawyers, consultants or project managers as bigger businesses. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure better access to public sector contracts?

[Georgia Gould]

I have heard very similar things from the small and medium-sized enterprises I have been talking to around the country. We are bringing forward a new national procurement policy statement that will put SMEs right at the heart of Government procurement policies.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Open end-to-end procurement data could be a goldmine for mission-driven government, and as the Competition and Markets Authority warned recently, it could make bid rigging harder. Can the Minister explain how we will grasp the opportunity of open end-to-end procurement data?

[Georgia Gould]

I have met the CMA about the critical issue of bid rigging, and it is something the Government are looking into. More broadly, the Procurement Act 2023 and the new national procurement policy statement put transparency and openness at the heart of our strategy, including a new online portal, which will make it much easier to see upcoming bids.

Oral Answers to Questions

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to reform public procurement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

I spent the last few weeks meeting small and medium-sized enterprises, voluntary and community sector organisations, wider businesses and contracting authorities to discuss how we ensure that the approximately £300 billion that is spent each year on public sector procurement delivers for our communities. With this Government, procurement will deliver value for money, better public services and our national missions. The Procurement Act 2023 commences in February 2025, creating a simpler, more flexible procurement system under- pinned by a new mission-led national procurement policy statement to ensure that public procurement delivers on the Government’s missions.

[Katrina Murray]

Small businesses are a crucial part of the economy in Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. There are huge opportunities to help them further, and one way of doing that is to work across the public sector and with local authorities—in my case, North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire councils, with contracts as big as the redevelopment of Cumbernauld town centre. Will the Minister work with local authorities and the Scottish Government to help more small businesses to bid successfully for contracts?

[Georgia Gould]

It is critical that we open up public procurement to small businesses. As I have said, £300 billion is a huge amount of public money, and the opportunity to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have access to that is also critical. As my hon. Friend said, SMEs are rooted in our communities, and provide local, often good-quality jobs.

We are taking action now to crack down on late payments that hit the cash flow of small businesses. The Chancellor announced recently that companies bidding for large Government contracts would be excluded from the procurement process if they did not pay their own suppliers within an average of 45 days.

[Bill Esterson]

The last Government promised to give more contracts through procurement to small businesses, but failed to do so for 14 years. Instead, they chose to use Government contracting to support their mates through covid. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will use the power of Government spending to contract directly with small businesses to support local companies and economies across the country, in stark contrast to the Conservative party’s enrichment of their mates?

[Georgia Gould]

As I have said, we will work hard to ensure that public contracts are supporting small businesses. I have spent a lot of time talking to them about how we can do that through the new public procurement policy and the measures in the policy statement. This week the Chancellor announced the appointment of a new covid corruption commissioner, who will be taking action to recover public money.

[Euan Stainbank]

The residents of Falkirk want a Government who work day in, day out to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Never has that been so true as now, given the broken public finances left by the Tories and 17 years of waste and inaction from the Scottish National party up the road. Does the Minister agree that the billions we spend on public procurement must deliver value for the taxpayer, and can she tell me what steps the Government are taking to ensure that that is the case?

[Georgia Gould]

When our public services are facing so much strain and desperately need rebuilding, it is critical that we cut waste and deliver value for money. Under the last Government the procurement system too often failed to drive that efficiency, as was shown by the shocking levels of fraud and waste during the pandemic. We will bring new transparency to public sector procurement, along with a relentless focus on fraud.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Gross spending on public procurement was £400 billion last year. What is the Government’s precise target for delivering greater savings from that budget?

[Georgia Gould]

That £400 billion is an enormous amount of money, and we need to ensure that it is going into growth, delivering for our communities and SMEs, and delivering on our missions. We are determined to act on procurement and reduce inefficiency, and we will provide further information about that in February. We cannot take lessons from the Conservative party about cutting waste inefficiencies, given that they oversaw gross mismanagement—Lord Agnew himself referred to “schoolboy errors”—in the delivery of procurement for this country.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The focus on public procurement will be welcomed by SMEs in the cyber-security sector in my constituency. CyNam has thousands of members, and when I talk to its SMEs they tell me that there is a real risk of our losing talent in the start-ups community to cities abroad such as Lisbon and Toronto. Can the Minister confirm that the steps being taken by the Government are good news for SMEs and Cynam?

[Georgia Gould]

As I have said, I firmly believe that we need to support SMEs, and I should be more than happy to speak to those in the hon. Member’s constituency and discuss the opportunities that are available. There is so much innovation and talent in this country. We need to ensure that public sector money is supporting our growth mission, and supporting good businesses in communities such as those in his constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. I have a very simple question: what steps have been taken to ensure that we have better procurement measures domestically in the United Kingdom and the devolved nations, particularly Northern Ireland, as opposed to relying on international partners to provide or deliver goods?

[Georgia Gould]

Through our procurement regime, we are determined to support small businesses, which are often locally rooted. We will continue to do that, while taking account of our trade obligations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am delighted to meet the Minister across the Dispatch Box. I have also been meeting many SMEs in the aftermath of the Budget. The impact of the Government’s decision to raise national insurance on many indirect providers of public services, such as GPs and hospices, appears not to have been fully factored into the Government’s workings at the time of the Budget. Now that the Government have had over a month to do the figures, what will be the impact of the national insurance job tax on the cost of public procurement, to the nearest, say, £1 billion?

[Georgia Gould]

I welcome the hon. Member to their place and look forward to meeting them across the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country in a terrible place, with public services in crisis. I was previously a council leader, and every single day I saw the absolute strain on our public services. People were waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances, which sometimes did not turn up. We have had to take action to invest in our public services in order to deliver growth. Through our procurement regime, we are already taking action to support SMEs, to ensure that money is not lost and to ensure that suppliers are paid quickly. I will set out more to the House in February—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to get through the list. Give me a chance to get through it—we are only on question 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

As a former council leader, I have seen at first hand the crisis in public services, with people falling between the cracks of systems that are under extreme strain. To reform that, we need to get out of Whitehall and support workers across the public sector to do things differently. From intervening early to support families, a White Paper overhauling employment support and an ambitious programme of reforms of the NHS, this Government are determined to reform public services to deliver for citizens.

[Warinder Juss]

Under the Conservative party, too much taxpayers’ money was wasted on projects and schemes that simply did not work. Does the Minister agree with me that in order to improve healthcare services, including mental health services, educational opportunities and social services, as well as transport provision and public safety in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, it is vital that the Government continue their tests and refine their policies to ensure they are effective, and continue to be effective?

[Georgia Gould]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I heard too often from those on the frontline that they are fed up with policy being made in a closed room in Whitehall, and not with those who have real experience of the frontline. The Budget announced the introduction of a public sector reform and innovation fund to support us to test and learn with places around the UK. We are learning from the best evidence across the public sector. On Monday, I met representatives from all the What Work centres across Government, to understand the evidence of what works and how we can scale that to deliver for communities around the country.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We all remember that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Centre undertook that there would be no additional money going into the NHS without securing reform. That, like so many other broken promises, was dropped, and £22 billion or £25 billion—whatever it is—of funding was announced. Then afterwards he repeated the pledge that there would be no extra money without reform. Well, the cat is out of the bag. Will the Minister give the undertaking today, on behalf of the Government, that never again will we see vast increases in public expenditure without reform of public services, because we need an improvement in productivity, not just additional spending?

[Georgia Gould]

I am surprised to hear a Member on the Conservative Benches express concern about money that is desperately needed going into our NHS, when people are waiting for GP appointments and in ambulances. Under the Conservative party, police officers would spend hours sitting with people with mental health concerns. Is that productivity? The Secretary of State has set out an incredibly ambitious reform agenda for the NHS, moving resources into prevention and taking account of the amazing opportunities in digital technology to give people more control over their own health. Labour is the party that backs the NHS and fixes the mess left by the previous Government.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

18. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T5. The previous Conservative Government exposed themselves to unprecedented levels of corruption and cronyism when delivering contracts during the pandemic. Recent analysis has shown that £1 in every £3 spent went on high-risk contracts, worth more than £15 billion. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are always making procurement decisions that are in the public interest, avoiding unmanaged and unmitigated conflicts? What will they do to ensure that taxpayers’ money is always spent wisely?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Earlier this week, the Chancellor announced the appointment of Tom Hayhoe as the covid counter-fraud commissioner. The new commissioner will leave no stone unturned to investigate the unacceptable waste and fraud during the pandemic and to make sure that we learn lessons for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. Due to our dire economic inheritance, it is vital that every penny of public money is spent wisely. In my constituency of Harlow, £29 million was spent on Sir Frederick Gibberd College only for it to be deemed unsafe and to be pulled down. What steps will the Government take to ensure that we spend money wisely, that we do not spend unnecessary money on unnecessary consultants, and that we get the best for the people of Harlow?

[Georgia Gould]

Under the Conservative Government, too much taxpayers’ money was wasted on eye-watering consultancy contracts. We are taking steps to stop all non-essential Government consultancy spending this year and halve Government spending on consultancy in future years. [Interruption.] It might be hard for Conservative Members to hear about their record, but it is harder for us to live with it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

T3. Last week, the Government released their latest departmental lobbying transparency data. The data was two months late and relates to the last months of the previous Government, namely April to June 2024. The public will learn who the new Government met during their first weeks in power only at the end of December, a full six months after the election, and that is only if the data is released on time. UK lobbying rules have more holes than Swiss cheese, so will the Government set a timeline for creating a central database of departmental transparency data, with monthly updates, thereby closing the litany of loopholes in the current lobbying rules?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Public procurement is a vital lever for delivering our growth mission, and growth must be felt by people in every part of our country. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that when taxpayers’ money is spent on private contracts, the key workers delivering the contract and local communities such as mine in Darlington maximise the benefits of that public money?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the time she spent with me last week setting out the opportunities of procurement and the needs of her community in Darlington. We have heard from the whole House today how important it is to back small and medium- sized enterprises that have roots in communities, and we are determined that the new national policy procurement statement will do that.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am delighted to give Christmas greetings to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I am sure that most of us in the House feel a great deal of respect for him.

As the Prime Minister knew he was appointing a convicted fraudster to the Cabinet, was it not incumbent on him to tell the propriety and ethics team? If I can slip a second question in, Mr Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman, who is committed to and leads in the Government on transparency and openness, all of which have been promised, undertake—notwithstanding the fact that he has not looked at these declarations—to find out and let the House know whether she declared it to the House?

Cabinet Office

Georgia Gould Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on Public Procurement on 24 October 2024.

[Georgia Gould]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently took decisive action by appointing a new covid counter-fraud commissioner to help us recover public money and ensure that this never happens again.

[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 388.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould):

[Georgia Gould]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently took decisive action by commencing the appointment of a new covid counter-fraud commissioner to help us recover public money and ensure that this never happens again.