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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Mark Button, Dr Rasha Kassem and Professor Michael Levi. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. It is vital that we stick to the timings, which are tight and which the Committee has agreed. This panel lasts until 10 past 10 at the outside. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Professor Button: Good morning, everybody. My name is Professor Mark Button. I am co-director of the Centre for Cybercrime and Economic Crime at the University of Portsmouth and I have been researching fraud-related issues for nearly 20 years.

Dr Kassem: Good morning, everyone. I am Dr Rasha Kassem, senior lecturer and leader of the fraud research group at Aston University. Like Mark, but probably for fewer years, I have been researching all aspects of fraud.

Professor Levi: I am Michael Levi. I am professor of criminology at Cardiff University and I have been researching fraud for 53 years, so I think I win on that score, although that may mean I am very out of date.

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

Q

I will start by asking the panel a reasonably general question. What, in your experience, are the main limiting factors in investigating public sector fraud?

Professor Button: There is a number of factors. Obviously, the first challenge with dealing with social security fraud and a lot of the rest of public sector fraud is that you have no choice but to deal with those people. It is not like a bank or a private company, which have the opportunity to decide whether to do business with that particular person. In the case of someone making a claim for a benefit, the public sector body has to deal with that person.

You are obviously dealing with increasingly highly organised fraudsters that often operate across borders. That poses significant challenges, particularly for many public sector fraud agencies, particularly when the police themselves have very limited resources. Fewer than 2,000 officers are dedicated to economic crime. They simply do not have the time to help public sector bodies deal with these things. When you look at those particular challenges, having professional capacity within government to investigate fraud with the appropriate powers is a sound basis for dealing with these problems.

Dr Kassem: The capabilities and skills of public authority staff would be a main challenge for me. Do they have the same understanding about what fraud means, its impact, the methodologies and typologies of fraud and the limitations of each type? I ask that because when you talk about fraud, you are talking about fraud committed against the public sector by individuals as well as organisations. The procedures cannot be the same in each case, and the motivations and the resources will not be the same in each case, so they have to have this understanding.

Equally, there has to be an understanding about the differentiation between fraud and error; the element of intent to deceive is the main differentiating factor. Do we have criteria that tell staff in the public sector how to differentiate between fraud and error? Is that agreed upon criteria to ensure that errors are not happening? 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.

Professor Levi: I have one final, quick point, because I know that there are a lot of questions. At one extreme, there is the point that Mark made about organised crime groups and so on, but it is a question of identifying when something is an organised crime activity, which you can only do easily either by getting intelligence or by correlating claimants’ data to build up a pattern, as in covid-19 fraud schemes. At the other extreme, there is what is probably the majority—failure to notify a change in circumstance. This has always been the most common part of the area covered by the Department for Work and Pensions. As far as the Public Sector Fraud Authority goes, I think it is a question of identifying a lot of internal cases from people that you would not ordinarily suspect.

[Mike Wood]

Q I think all three of you have suggested, at least, that the PSFA would be a positive step in tackling some of those challenges. Are there any gaps where you think the legislation could or should have gone further? Is there something that should have been in there but seems to be missing?

Professor Button: One of the key things is always resources. If you look at the size of the PSFA at the moment, in terms of the scale of fraud, and look at some of its estimates, you see that this is substantially more than the estimates of fraud in the DWP, so having a relatively small unit, as proposed, is, I think, a limitation. For me, the key thing is having the appropriate resources within that unit to have a real impact on fraud. That question, “Is there enough there at the moment?”, is a key one.

Dr Kassem: Although I believe that this is a very positive step and definitely will enhance accountability, several things need to be considered. To start with, 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.

There is also the difference between fraud and error. I know that intent is mentioned—rightly so—as the main differentiating factor between fraud and error. Again, however, we have to be very clear about the criteria that would enable public sector staff to differentiate between fraud and error, because you do not want them to make mistakes and accuse innocent individuals of committing fraud, just like what happened in the Post aOffice scandal. That would cause further reputational damage to the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the public sector in general, so they have to be very careful about the criteria, which have to be agreed upon.

This is the second area that I want to talk about: because there is a difference between fraud and error, the recovery and the procedures, in terms of perpetrators committing fraud versus those committing an error, need to be clarified in the Bill. I do not think that that is clear enough at the moment.

The third point is about understanding the very nature of fraud—the fact that fraud can be committed by individuals and organisations. The policies and procedures that will be followed when you deal with fraud committed by individuals should not be the same as those that are followed when you deal with organisations. For example, if you were to take preventive measures, the procedures would be different for organisations versus individuals. With organisations, you are talking about controls, compliance measures and so on. That has to be clarified in the Bill—how fraud committed by organisations will be dealt with versus fraud committed by individuals.

Lastly, I would like to raise the possibility of abuse of power. Again, although the PSFA has greater intentions of preventing fraud, you want it to appear to the public that there is less risk of abuse of position. The oversight board will be very important there as an independent body, and perhaps it could be a board independent from the PSFA staff who oversee the work. For this to work, there have to be proper governance structures, including independent board members who have proper fraud expertise and understand the limitations and the mission of the public authorities. It will be very important for public authorities to report on their operational performance to enable that independent board to oversee properly.

Professor Levi: I do not quite agree with all those comments. Some of those measures do not need to be in the Bill, but they obviously need to be part of the structure. The Bill will hopefully last for a long time, and I am sure that you are all familiar with changes.

I think the point about the resource is important, but you also need to allow time for bedding in. There is the issue of where they will recruit staff from, and how experienced they are in actually dealing with stuff. I remember the Assets Recovery Agency, which was a stand-alone body. It was closed down because it did not recover as much as it cost at that time, as there were so many appeals. This is not quite analogous with that agency, but one needs to remember that it takes years to develop skills in actually handling cases. I do not think that is so much a question of the limitations of the Bill but a warning about not expecting too rapid results. Obviously, the practitioners and policymakers may offer a different view from mine, but I think it takes quite a long time. When I reviewed the Serious Fraud Office for the royal commission in 1992, I saw that gaining expertise in actually dealing with stuff takes quite a while, and some would argue that it has not yet done that.

[Mike Wood]

Q The Government’s impact assessment recognises that some will change their behaviours to circumvent checks. How easy do you think it would be to close the loopholes that allow some to get around the checks? Would that be a proportionate response?

Professor Button: With any kind of initiative like this, you will always get a degree of displacement. The clever fraudsters will find new means to get around the rules. Obviously, a lot of these measures are directed at the more opportunistic individuals who are not as well organised and probably do not invest as much time in looking for means to get around some of those measures. For that client group of offenders, the Bill will be quite effective. However, for the more organised offenders, particularly the more organised crime elements, they will find ways to get around some of these measures.

Professor Levi: I am not clear about the provisions for international linkages in the Bill. Perhaps that is something that just needs to be sorted out afterwards, but people need to be able to chase money overseas. The question about who does that, and what they need to do before they are able to do that, is pretty important. This is not so much in covid-19 frauds, because that has already happened, but a lot of these things are time critical. The asset-freezing orders that were granted to the police in 2017 have proven very effective, so we need to think about what processes there are for dealing with stuff rapidly.

Dr Kassem: I have one final point. I raised the issue of differentiating between fraud committed by individuals and by organisations. I think that needs to be sorted in the Bill, not afterwards. For example, from a governance perspective, the Bill says that you can access banks accounts and freeze assets, but whose? Are you going to take the assets from the organisation, the directors running the organisation or the fraud perpetrators inside the organisation? This has to be sorted, because you will face another issue, at least in courts, about who is the controlling mind in the organisation. The organisation has a mind of its own legally, and therefore cannot be treated in the same way as when you deal directly with individuals. If that is sorted, there will hopefully be a higher probability of recovery and fewer loopholes in the Bill.

Professor Levi: There is also the question of legal aid for those suspected or accused who have to take some measures to appeal. I was not clear about that, although it may be my fault.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Can I come back in on the point about fraud and error, and the differentiation between organised fraud and fraud by individuals? Are you saying that needs to be more clearly defined? There is potentially a slight difference on the panel: Dr Kassem, you were saying that there needs to be greater clarity in the Bill, and Professor Levi, you were saying that some bits do not need to be in the Bill. Are you saying that they need to be in the guidance? I was a bit confused.

Professor Levi: I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill. Definitions of what we mean by “organised” are typically vague. An act committed by three or more people for the pursuit of profit is a very low bar for organised crime. A fraud by one person can be perfectly well organised, but they are not part of an organised crime group. In policing, we talk about organised crime activity and people normally think about organised crime groups. That is a definitional problem that may be too much for the Bill in its present form, and indeed for Governments. They certainly need to think about what conditions apply to which people, and I am sure they have. I am not sure whether that constraint needs to be in the Bill, but Dr Rasha may have a different view.

Dr Kassem: For me, when I talk about fraud committed by organisations, it does not have to be organised crime. It could be a legitimate organisation defrauding the public sector. Again, the Bill mentions things around recovery, such as accessing bank accounts and seizing assets—how would they apply in cases of organisation versus individual? That needs to be thought about carefully in the Bill. Again, when you think about the nature of fraud and who is committing it, you are talking about different powers and different motives for individuals versus organisations. There are different assets and different ways of recovery. They are not the same, and therefore that has to be clarified in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Helena Wood, director of public policy and strategic engagement at Cifas and a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute.

[Mike Wood]

Q Welcome, Ms Wood. A lot of the discussion on the first panel was about the balance between effectiveness and proportionality. How well do you think the Bill as currently drafted strikes that balance?

Helena Wood: I find it quite difficult to comment on that, given that we are yet to see the code of practice. A lot of burden has been placed on that code of practice as it stands to build in some of that proportionality. I know the Government have committed to consulting on that code of practice forthwith, but without seeing that, a lot hinges on how those powers will be used in practice. Without that being known to me at present, I would quite like to see something pulled up on to the face of the Bill to build in proportionality by design.

Both on the PSFA side and the DWP eligibility verification powers, the Bill is a very blunt instrument, as it stands, and I think the law would do well to pull up those proportionality measures on to the face of the Bill. We have to look at this Bill in its broader context: very much unintentionally, it stands at that ideological debate between the rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of society as a whole to benefit from the funds that are available to fund essential public services. We have to deal with both of those arguments with due caution and due respect. As it stands, the Bill tends to be quite blunt in the way things are proposed on its face, and I would like to see a lot more from that code of practice and how it will be built in.

Beyond that, I would like to see a lot more about the people who will be using these powers. Again, we trust the police to use their coercive and intrusive powers based on their skills, experience and training. At the moment, there is a reasonably low bar set in the legislation, which is merely to be a higher executive officer or senior executive officer—a very entry-grade civil service officer. Other coercive powers that we can see across areas I have studied over the course of a 20-year career, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, require some professional skills: where one is not a police officer, one must be a trained financial investigator. It is a trained and accredited role that is overseen by statute. Here, the competence of the individuals using that power, and the trust we can thus place in them to use those powers proportionately, is quite limited.

[Mike Wood]

Q If we are looking at moving some of those standards on to the face of the Bill, for questions such as reasonableness, is there a recognised definition or test for reasonableness that you think could be incorporated into the Bill?

Helena Wood: It depends which part of the Bill we are talking about. This is a game of two halves: some of the PSFA powers, for example, mirror powers that are used almost as standard across the landscape of counter-financial crime, and I think we can be more comfortable about the use of those powers. The power I have more concerns about is something that is very new and incredibly intrusive, and without limitation to it being a civil or criminal investigation: the DWP eligibility verification powers. There, we need to proceed with more caution about how they are used, given that this is very much at risk of being a blanket, phishing-style power without any recourse to the limitations and the bars that others have to reach to use other powers that would be either a civil or criminal investigation. I think that part of the Bill requires a little more thought and proportionality pulling up front, unless the Government can bring forward that code of practice to allow those of you around the room judging this Bill to see what will be in the code to limit the use of those powers to the highest risk of high-end investigations, rather than making it a blanket power.

[Mike Wood]

Q Given the extent and potential impact of those powers, is it your view that some further oversight or, potentially, appeal mechanism would be appropriate to help safeguard those interests?

Helena Wood: Absolutely. The concerns I have around those powers are about collateral intrusion. We can all agree that the quality of data both on the DWP side and on the part of financial institutions is not always as good as it could be. I completely agree with the need to minimise the level of information that those institutions give back to the DWP, to caution against unnecessary intrusions upon privacy, but I would like to see a minimum standard of data match that would be required to take action on that data. If the banks are only giving a minimum amount of information back into the DWP, how do we know that that is an absolute specific match on the individuals they have on their system? Without seeing information about how that will be acted upon in the code of practice, I am slightly cautious. We need to see that detail earlier rather than later, for you to be able to make that judgment about the risk of unintended consequences of this legislation.

Let us again look at this in its broader context. This is a very intrusive power, but it sits in a suite of other measures and powers available to investigators across the system. What we do not want to do with this power is to bring those other powers into disrepute. We have to apply it with due caution, making sure that a match is a match. I would like to see which specific data points will be available to the DWP investigator to ensure this is a match and to minimise the risk of collateral intrusion.

[Andrew Western]

Q On your point about scope and the level of intrusion associated with the eligibility verification measure, you said you would like to see the power restricted to the most serious investigations. From our perspective, that would run contrary to what we are trying to achieve in capturing data that enables us to identify those who we had no idea were committing fraud or in receipt of an overpayment, albeit unwittingly. Is there another way you think we could achieve this?

Helena Wood: That is a very good question. It goes back to the balance between individual rights to privacy and society’s rights as a whole. Only you can make the decision about where that balance falls. Going back to the previous question, I would like to see built into the oversight of the use of the power a specific requirement for the independent reviewer to look at instances of collateral intrusion and where mistakes have been made, and to report on those to Parliament. If we can build that into the code of practice—forgive me for keeping on going back to that code, but I think a lot of the use of this power hinges on how it will be used in practice and by whom. We need to build some significant guardrails against that.

The second point I would make is that to my knowledge, this is an unprecedented power internationally, so how can we be sure it is going to be effective in practice? We know, for example, that individuals rarely have one bank account in one institution any more. In fact, numerous pieces of research—forgive me; I do not have the figures in my head, but I can refer those back to the Committee—show that individuals now have masses of bank accounts across five, six, seven and up to 10 or 20 institutions. By targeting one institution, are you really going to get a full picture anyway? If this is to be proportionate, we have to be clear that intrusion is proportionate and is going to be effective in practice. I am yet to see the evidence that it is, if it is used in a scattergun way. That is why it would be great to build into the code of practice something much more targeted around risk. For example, high-risk postcodes coming through in intelligence around organised crime attacks on the benefits system might be one way to look at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Kristin Jones, formerly of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and from Alex Rothwell, chief executive of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. For this panel, we have until 11 o’clock.

[Mike Wood]

Q Perhaps I can start with the same question that I asked Helena Wood in the last panel. How well do you think the Bill, as currently drafted, strikes the balance between effectiveness and proportionality?

Kristin Jones: I am sure I have the same answer as Helena. Until we see the codes of practice and the operational guidance, it is difficult to tell. Obviously, I have operated in very regulated situations where there has been accountability, but without that extra information, I cannot really say at the moment. But I think it is important that when you interfere with the rights of the individual, decisions are taken at a sufficiently high level by people with sufficient experience.

[Mike Wood]

Is that your view as well, Alex?

Alex Rothwell: I would echo Kristin’s thoughts. I suppose there is not necessarily anything novel in the Bill. Those powers exist elsewhere, so we have seen them in operation. The ability to test and learn, which is baked into the proposals, is very helpful. Importantly, it addresses a need.

[Mike Wood]

Q A theme seems to be emerging from this morning’s witnesses that it is difficult to know whether the extensive powers in the Bill are proportionate without knowing how they will be exercised. Would you expect the details that are planned for the code of practice to be on the face of the legislation?

Kristin Jones: Not on the face of the legislation necessarily, but I would perhaps expect certain commitments in debate that the code of practice will cover certain areas.

[Mike Wood]

Perhaps a draft code before Parliament makes definitive decisions on the legislation.

Kristin Jones: Yes, or commitments to safeguards that will be in the code of practice.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do you think that the measures in the Bill and the powers to update them are sufficiently flexible to respond to the changing nature of fraud that you have seen through your career and would expect to continue in the years ahead?

Kristin Jones: I do have some reservations about dealing with corporate organisations, as was expressed earlier, because a corporate cannot speak itself; it can speak only through its officers. The Bill only talks about notices; it does not talk about answering questions. It is quite difficult if you are not able to ask an officer of a corporate questions and you have just written answers through notices. I wonder whether there are sufficient powers for dealing with the more serious, top end of public sector fraud.

[Mike Wood]

Q Alex, perhaps you could broaden out this discussion by explaining the specific challenges that the NHS faces in identifying and investigating fraud and recovering sums of money. Could you comment on how you expect the Bill to make a difference?

Alex Rothwell: Perhaps a good example is that although we believe we are losing something in the region of £1.3 billion a year to fraud, the amount of fraud that is actually identified is relatively low, because a lot of the value we get is from future prevention. For example, in 2023-24, the figure was something like £5.2 million, but we only recovered 12% of that figure. There is a lot more value to be had. The Bill will be incredibly helpful for us to recover more money from people who have been suspected of fraud. When it comes to pursuing criminal justice outcomes in relatively low value cases—perhaps individuals who have taken £5,000 or £10,000, who have been exited through human resources processes or who have simply left the organisation—the Bill gives us an incredible opportunity to recover more funds, and I think we would use it extensively.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do either of you think that anything is missing from the Bill that would help in the fight against fraud and would be appropriate in legislation like this?

Kristin Jones: My career has been dealing with fraud in the public and private sector, and I think it is important that when fraud is investigated and you discover something that is not in your scope, you are able to communicate it so that fraudsters are tackled, whether that is in the private or public sector. That is my only concern.

Alex Rothwell: The Bill seems pretty comprehensive in terms of our requirements. There are things that I have concerns around, including training—not just of individuals who are exercising the powers, but of those who manage them and set the culture and tone of an organisation and how it is built in. I echo Kristin’s comments about private sector providers. For example, we are increasingly seeing private sector providers providing NHS services, so how would that be exercised? From my point of view it is more about the exercise of the powers than the extent of the powers.

Kristin Jones: The other thing I think is missing compared to when other organisations have been established is that we only talk about investigators. I am a great believer in a multidisciplinary team, with early legal advice, accountancy advice as necessary and financial investigators, but we have an organisation at the moment in which we only define the role of the investigators.

[Andrew Western]

Q I asked this question of the first panel, but I am interested, both in broad terms and specifically within the parameters of your role in the NHS, in whether you have seen changing attitudes to fraud in recent years. Obviously there are various public attitude surveys that would indicate that that is the case, but has there been an increasing prevalence of fraud that the NHS has had to contend with, and do you have any comments on general changes in attitudes?

Alex Rothwell: I certainly echo your thoughts in terms of attitude. We have seen that expressed in a number of different ways through surveys and transparency—the international transparency index, for example. In terms of statistics, we have seen our fraud prevalence rate remain fairly steady over the last five to seven years, but it is a complex picture because I think that we have been increasing our fraud protection measures as well. What we have seen across the board are bitter pay disputes and a sense that contracts do not pay enough. We have extensive provider assurance programmes that are recovering funds through what we classify as error. I do not see any change in that climate necessarily. Opportunities to strengthen prevention, for us, are the most important factor to influence people’s decision making before they commit fraud. So it is a huge concern to me, but not necessarily in terms of statistics.

Kristin Jones: During my career, I have seen sentences for fraud increase dramatically and that sends a clear message but, over my career, instead of only a few people being exposed to fraud, when you answer your telephone, there is a good chance you have a scammer at the other end; it could happen once a week, if not several times a day. If you are being targeted, it could be every mealtime, with the scammer hoping that while you are distracted you will fall for some con. The worry is that the public are exposed so much to fraud that its seriousness gets watered down in their mind. You have these forums where you can recommend how to claim various things from the Government and how to hit sweet spots to get that benefit or grant. So it has changed and perhaps people are not as shocked by fraud as they used to be.

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from John Smart, formerly partner for forensics at Ernst & Young, who now sits on the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s advisory panel. We have until 2.50 pm.

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

Q At the heart of this Bill is the establishment of the PSFA as a separate body outside the Cabinet Office. What do you see as the practical benefits that that move will bring? How will you better be able to serve the public sector?

John Smart: I think being fully independent would probably be helpful, although I suspect that the realistic impact of that will be more theoretical rather than practical in the short term. Maybe, in the longer term, a fully independent, stand-alone organisation would be much more helpful.

[Mike Wood]

Q How would you see that independence interacting with the decision-making processes in the Bill, which largely rely on ministerial or departmental decisions in terms of the orders for information?

John Smart: That needs to be determined in terms of the overall governance structure of the organisation, as and when it is set up, because it would clearly need to have an independent board, and some of the oversight powers proposed in the Bill would need to be independent of the management of that business. I think it would require quite a lot of thought around the overall governance structure, the way it operates and the way that the day-to-day management of the business is independent of the oversight powers.

[Mike Wood]

Q This is very much a Bill of two halves, and many of the powers that will be given to the PSFA are equivalent to those that are being given to DWP investigators. The obvious difference is the use of reasonable force. Do you think that the nature of PSFA investigations means that that power will not really be required, or do you think that your powers should also include reasonable force?

John Smart: As you say, the nature of the investigations that will be carried out by the PSFA will be quite different from those being carried out by the DWP. Certainly, the proposal in the Bill is that investigations that require some form of search warrant will be carried out with a police officer present, and therefore the powers that are being given to DWP in relation to this Bill will already sit with the police that will accompany any investigators that are doing work on behalf of the PSFA. That is my understanding.

[Mike Wood]

Q For a lot of the provisions in the Bill, those in receipt of orders potentially have a very short timeframe to comply with the demands.

John Smart: Yes.

[Mike Wood]

Based on your experience with the PSFA so far, is that consistent with the length of time that, in most cases, it takes such organisations to reply to requests for information?

John Smart: The consistency question is an interesting one. I think a lot of those powers are likely to be applied specifically in relation to banks and telecoms companies. They already have procedures in place to respond to requests for information, and therefore, in the majority of cases, my suspicion is that those short timeframes will be consistent with what they normally deal with, so there will not be a big onus on them to change the way they normally operate.

[Mike Wood]

Q The provisions of the Bill are not confined to financial institutions, are they?

John Smart: They are not, no. I do not know which institutions are likely to be required to provide information. There will be individuals and institutions. Other institutions might find it more difficult, but there is an appeals process, which they can apply to use, in relation to provision of information. If it is unreasonably onerous, I suspect it will mean that the timescale will be varied.

[Mike Wood]

Q The legislation sets out a specific period of time for a lot of those powers, so would it be logical to assume that for some smaller businesses, it may take longer to comply than for multinational banks that are doing it regularly?

John Smart: That is true. I have spent 35 years investigating fraud, and the challenge is that there is a need to be reasonably speedy in doing those investigations because, as we heard earlier, any recoveries are going to be much reduced if there is a significant delay in carrying out the investigation and applying for either criminal or civil proceedings to take place. Therefore, speed is important in any investigation. Otherwise, you are spending a lot of time and effort without getting the result you need.

[Mike Wood]

Q Obviously, you have not been involved in such direct investigations, but just to give us some idea of the quantum we are talking about, what period of time do you think would count as reasonably speedy, so that it would not endanger an investigation? Are we talking about days, weeks or months?

John Smart: I think weeks is reasonable. A small number of weeks is a reasonable number to look for, rather than days or months. Months is far too long, and days is probably a little too short in relation to the ability of organisations to respond.

[Andrew Western]

Q I have a very general question to open with. You will be more aware than I am of the changing nature of fraud and the increasing sophistication that we see from perpetrators. Do you agree, in general, that the DWP’s powers would need to be modernised in order to cope with that shift? Also, what are your views on the general provisions within the Bill, where it pertains to the DWP, to detect and prevent fraud?

John Smart: At the risk of echoing what has been said before, I think it is critical that we modernise the approach to fraud, and the Bill is a good step towards that modernisation. The critical part of a lot of investigations now—and of identifying, preventing and detecting fraud—is the use of data. Getting that data and information quickly and effectively is critical. I think the Bill will go a long way towards speeding up and broadening the available information that can be used to prevent, detect and prosecute fraud. That is a really valuable thing that we should be pushing for, because relying on pieces of paper to seek information from organisations is crazy in this day and age, when you can do it electronically and get an answer relatively quickly. If you are turning up with a piece of paper, it can take weeks or months.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Eric Leenders and Daniel Cichocki, both from UK Finance. We have until 3.10 pm.

[Mike Wood]

Q What consultation has there been with industry to make sure that the eligibility verification measures are workable and that your members will know what is required of them?

Daniel Cichocki: A number of conversations with the industry have taken place since the measure was announced. We have been very clear since the announcement was made that we are supportive of the efforts to tackle fraud and error in the public sector. We recognise the scale of the challenge that the Government face, and as a private sector we see clearly the damage fraud does to both the public and the private sectors. We are very supportive of the objectives of the Bill. As you say, the key thing for us as a sector that is heavily regulated, both from a vulnerable customer treatment stance—my colleague Eric Leenders is best placed to talk about that—and a financial crime compliance perspective, is that more detail on the specifics of how the measure will work is still to emerge through the code of practice, but extensive conversations about that are under way.

From the banking industry perspective, we are keen to ensure that the compliance requirements for banks are clear in terms of what information is required. We hope to see in the code of practice, as soon as is practical, details of the specific criteria against which the Government will mandate banks to perform checks under the measure.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do banks have any sense of how many information notices and other applications they are likely to receive? Are there any expectations regarding the scale of the undertaking?

Daniel Cichocki: We are awaiting more detail. We have high-level indicators that the Government are likely to use the measure to require banks to perform checks against, which gives us some sense of the scale. Our initial assessment is that it is likely to be significant, but the key thing for us is to have more details of the criteria that the Government will require us to check against under the measure.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do you have any idea what the additional man hours or potential cost burden could be for a typical bank in a typical year?

Daniel Cichocki: It is quite difficult at this stage to perform that level of assessment, partly because so much detail of the measure will be set out in the code of practice. We are obviously very keen to ensure that the expectations of the industry in complying with the new requirement are proportionate, but that is difficult to assess in detail before we have seen the detail of the code of practice. Much will depend on the mechanism through which banks will be required to share the information, the frequency of the information notices, whether the criteria we are required to run the checks against change over time and other factors that will influence how much capacity is required from the banking sector. As I say, at this stage it is challenging to do a detailed assessment.

[Mike Wood]

Q Presumably you agree with the previous witness that, in general, banks are reasonably well adapted to responding to such notices. Do you think that 10 days is reasonable for them?

Daniel Cichocki: Certainly. The banks share very significant amounts of information with Government Departments and law enforcement to ensure compliance with measures to tackle economic crime. We take that very seriously. We also continue to share extensive information with the Director of Public Prosecutions where there is suspicion of fraud. There is certainly an existing set-up to respond to information requests.

There is a difference with this particular measure, though, and we are keen for it be considered. This request is for information to tackle both fraud and error. A lot of the information sharing that we as an industry currently do with elements of law enforcement is very much focused on suspected fraud, economic crime and serious and organised crime. This is a slightly broader measure, so we are keen to see in the code of practice a very clear set of requirements for banks to comply with. The infrastructure is certainly there.

[Mike Wood]

Q Is there any measure of how long it currently takes banks to respond to information requests from Government, such as those from HMRC, under existing powers?

Daniel Cichocki: A variety of powers exist to date. Some have time measures built in for compliance with them and some are voluntary. I think you have to ensure that this particular power is balanced against all the information sharing that the industry is currently required to do with both Government and law enforcement. For example, it must be balanced against the voluntary sharing that the industry is doing, particularly with law enforcement. Certainly, those of us working in economic crime are primarily focused on how we can work with Government and law enforcement to tackle serious and organised crime. Striking the balance between the additional requirements under this power and that effort is an area of focus on which we have also been engaged with the Government.

[Mike Wood]

Q Are there any other areas where you think the Bill could approach things differently? Is anything missing that you think should be in the Bill?

Daniel Cichocki: Given that the eligibility verification measure is one of the more extensive powers in the Bill, we think that it may be appropriate to require the Minister to attest that its use is proportionate, as is required with the other measures in the Bill. That is just because of that particular power’s scale in requiring banks to share information on both potential fraud and potential error. As it includes the sharing of information of customers who may not be suspected of any crime whatsoever, we think that it would be helpful if the Government were to articulate that their use of the measure is proportionate, as is the case with the others.

It would also be helpful if the Bill were to replicate the very effective Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 exemption, which exists within the eligibility verification measure, in the other measures across parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. That is simply because we do not think that it is necessarily proportionate or helpful for banks to be considering, in complying with legislation, whether they should also be undertaking a suspicious activity report for the authorities. One of the constructive conversations that we have been having with Government is how we delineate our responsibilities to comply with this legislation and our responsibilities to comply with financial crime measures. We will be writing on this in more detail, but we suggest that the exemption under the eligibility verification measure, which is very helpful, should be replicated in other elements of the Bill.

[Andrew Western]

Q Thank you for joining us today, and for the engagement that we have had so far; it has been incredibly helpful and you have my assurance that it will continue. I would like to test the point that you have just set out on the POCA measure within EVM, as well as rolling that out more broadly. Clearly we want to ensure that the burdens on banks that arise as a result of the EVM measure, and any of the other measures, interplay in an acceptable manner with the broad range of duties that fall upon you, including the consumer duty. In the interest of transparency, could you set out for the Committee your other concerns regarding potential conflicts if we do not get things right as we construct the code of practice?

Daniel Cichocki: We are making this suggestion because under the Bill banks responding to an information request or a direct deduction order, would have to consider whether there is some indication of financial crime that under POCA requires them to make a suspicious activity report. We think it is simpler to remove that requirement, not least because where there is a requirement to make a suspicious activity report there is a requirement to notify the authorities; clearly, there is already a notification to the authorities when complying with the measure. Removing that requirement would avoid the risk that banks must consider not only how to respond to the measure but whether they are required to treat that individual account as potentially fraudulent. We are trying to manage risk out of the system more broadly with financial crime compliance, so we think it is much more proportionate and effective to simply apply the same exemption across all the measures in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Q The Information Commissioner has indicated that some of the areas of previous concern on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill have been answered. Do you not share that position, and do you continue to have concerns in that area?

Ellen Lefley: We continue to have concerns, acknowledging that there are two key oversight mechanisms in the Bill that were not in the previous one: this independent reviewer role and the code of practice. It would be far easier for Justice, but more importantly for Parliament, to be assured of the proportionality of any human rights infringement if that code of practice were before us.

Paragraph 79 of the human rights memorandum to the Bill notes that the code of practice will significantly impact whether the EVN measures are proportionate and prevent arbitrary interference with people’s privacy. It would therefore be very helpful to see that detail in order for Parliament to be confident about the content of that code of practice and how these powers will actually be used.

[Mike Wood]

Q I want to stay on the artificial intelligence framework. You have spoken about the changes being made in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Other than the undertakings given by Ministers, what legal restrictions would there be on the operation of artificial intelligence in decision-making and investigation under this Bill?

Ellen Lefley: I will try to give a very brief summary of the wider legislative framework that operates with respect to artificial intelligence in general. There are, of course, human rights obligations on any public authority or any authority exercising public functions, as well as equality obligations against direct and indirect discrimination. There is the data protection framework, which of course relates to personal data. Then there are different obligations on artificial intelligence use within different sectoral areas.

[Mike Wood]

Q What recourse would individuals have who are adversely affected, whether it is by machine-made decision making or even human decision making?

Ellen Lefley: That is where it gets quite tricky, because of course the first barrier would be even knowing that you have been subject to any kind of algorithmic decision making or algorithmic-assisted decision making. If you have been subject to a completely automated decision, the new data Bill that is coming through will enable you to make representations and to request human intervention after the fact. But if algorithms are assisting a human decision-making process, there is no right to be notified, let alone to complain.

The position of someone who has been subject to one of these decision-making processes also needs to be considered in a very realistic way. The motivation, empowerment, means and brain space to complain in such circumstances cannot always be relied on. Justice is clear that while access to redress is always important, preventing unfair and discriminatory decision making always needs to be the priority.

[Mike Wood]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

There being no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Mark Cheeseman OBE gave evidence.

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Mark Cheeseman OBE, chief executive of the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We have until 3.50 pm.

[Mike Wood]

Q I want to go back to a question that I asked Mr Smart earlier. One of the main measures in the Bill is to move the PSFA from the Cabinet Office to make it an independent body. What do you see as the practical benefits? How will the public sector benefit from that new status?

Mark Cheeseman: The practical benefit to consider is that the place from where these powers are operated will have some degree of independence and separation from Ministers. That is a practice you would see in other circumstances as well, so it may give Parliament some assurance. That is balanced up against the cost.

[Mike Wood]

Q That independence is balanced with many of the provisions in the Bill, particularly around the information notices and the other Cabinet Office parts of the Bill, which come down to decision making by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. How does the independence of the PSFA interrelate with the personal sign-offs required by a specific Minister?

Mark Cheeseman: In the Bill, the Minister passes the powers to authorised officers. The authorised officers could be in that statutory body, and the authorised officers would be the ones who use the powers to do that. Those authorised officers would be people who have experience working in fraud and are part of the Government counter-fraud profession.

[Mike Wood]

Q The provisions in the Bill are fairly vague about who can exercise those powers directly. Compared with the investigatory powers created and set out in other legislation, should we be a bit more specific about what that experience, those qualifications or that seniority looks like?

Mark Cheeseman: The Bill currently lays it to the authorised officers. One of the transformations that has been going on in Government is the professionalisation of counter-fraud work. We now have a counter-fraud profession. There are now professional standards where, a while back, there were not, for a lot of investigations in the public sector. There are professional standards and practices, and a code of ethics for people who work in the sector. That sets a standard for the knowledge, skills and experience that the authorised officers exercising the powers would have. As to what level they are, that aligns with current practice and what you would see across the public sector.

[Mike Wood]

Q Is there a reason why it is not possible to refer to those standards in the legislation, if that is the accepted norm?

Mark Cheeseman: I am not sure whether one would refer to it in the legislation. It could be in the code of practice, and aspects like that.

[Mike Wood]

Q How close do you feel we are to having at least an idea of what a code of practice would look like, based on the PSFA’s experience in its current form?

Mark Cheeseman: The Public Sector Fraud Authority has been created by bringing together people from other spaces. These powers are designed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We heard from Richard Las earlier about the powers that HMRC uses to take action on suspected fraud where it has reasonable cause to do so. It is some of those experts who have come and developed these powers. I feel that that capability will come into the organisation, through which the organisation will be able to use the powers.

[Mike Wood]

Q For those of us who have been asked to make a decision on whether the powers in the legislation before us are reasonable and proportionate, as we have heard from one witness after another today, it is very difficult to make that decision without knowing how they will be carried out in practice. That obviously means knowing what will be in such a code.

Mark Cheeseman: Absolutely. The code of practice will be developed alongside the legislation, as is standard practice.

[Mike Wood]

We saw this in other legislation under the previous Government. It is not uncommon for Ministers to give an undertaking that at least a draft code might be published before legislation returns to Parliament for final decisions to be made. I know this is, perhaps, a question to ask of Ministers in a future session, but what are your thoughts on developing a draft code that parliamentarians might be able to look at whilst making those decisions, given that the legislation is now well under way? Is that something that you feel is a long way away, or would it be possible to have at least an outline of a draft code in a reasonably short period of time? I accept that there will be developments as we learn with experience.

Mark Cheeseman: I will leave Ministers to answer that question later, but we are developing the codes of practice now. The reason I talked about who has come into the Public Sector Fraud Authority to think about this is because it is not from scratch; we are basing it off current practice elsewhere. We are now developing those and they are under way, but I will leave it for Ministers to respond on the timescale.

[Mike Wood]

Q In terms of the obligations on organisations that are issued with information notices, based on your current experience, how many of the organisations that you approach asking for information typically respond within 10 days?

Mark Cheeseman: It is important to remember that the 10 days in the legislation is a minimum. It is the lowest that would be used. It is not saying that it will always be 10 days. One of the witnesses earlier highlighted that some of the organisations will have standard practices where they could respond in that time—they will be set up to do so. The time that is given will be dependent on the organisation you are interacting with, the individual you are interacting with and what is reasonable. Our fraud investigators are trying to balance the expediency of doing the investigation with making sure that people can respond, and that it is a fair and reasonable time to respond. The balance is there, and we should remember that that timescale is a minimum.

[Mike Wood]

Q It is absolutely a minimum, but is it correct that varying from that minimum is at the discretion of the Minister?

Mark Cheeseman: Yes, in the legislation.

[Mike Wood]

Q Does a review of the Minister’s decision also then go back to the original decision maker?

Mark Cheeseman: It is slightly different—it goes back within the structure, but the review of that decision is done by a separate authorised officer from the original authorised officer who did it.

[Mike Wood]

Q It is certainly a minimum, but a decision as to whether that is the right period of time is very much made within the organisation that is asking for the information, rather than there being any formal and independent process for the person responding to that request to be able to say, “Actually, we just can’t do this”.

Mark Cheeseman: The process as set out in the legislation is within the organisation, but there is an extra safeguard of an independent chair who will review the decisions taken by authorised officers. One would expect that that would be on a sampling basis, but we will be reviewing those decisions. If there are practices where those timescales look unreasonable, the independent chair could pick up on that and ask for action to be taken on it.

[Mike Wood]

Q But I am right in saying that that will be at a systemic level, rather than being able to say, case by case, “That was the wrong decision, and I am changing that decision.”

Mark Cheeseman: There will be case-by-case review, but you are right; it will be more, “Here is an issue that should be dealt with, and here’s how”.

[Andrew Western]

Q I suspect Minister Gould will have the bulk of the questions for you, Mark, but I have a very general question. There has, understandably, been a lot of discussion and questions today about the balance between people’s privacy and being able to prevent fraud. What is your overall view on whether the Bill strikes the necessary balance between the two?

Mark Cheeseman: My view is that the Bill does strike that balance, and it tries to strike the balance. It is difficult, because you need to balance the ability to take action against someone who has committed fraud against the state with having fair and reasonable processes for looking at someone who has not. The purpose of an investigation is not to find fraud; it is to find fact. That is why we have professionals who are trained and have a code of ethics around objectivity; their role is to find fact, not fraud. The Bill tries to strike that balance both by having authorised officers and by having the oversight that is in place. The Government structure, in having the counter-fraud profession, provides some of that as well. My view of the Bill is that there is a fair amount of independent oversight—that is a good thing—to increase how well things are done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the final session, we have the Ministers in charge of the Bill. We have until 5 pm. You have been participating actively in the proceedings already, but could both of you please introduce yourselves for the record?

Andrew Western: I am Andrew Western, Minister for Transformation at the DWP.

Georgia Gould: I am Georgia Gould, the Minister for public sector reform at the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for fraud against the public sector.

[Mike Wood]

Q A lot of the questions to witnesses today have revolved around the code of conduct. There are several parts of the Bill that refer to a code or codes of conduct. Can you give us an idea of how those will operate? Are we looking at a single code or multiple documents? What will their status be?

Andrew Western: For the DWP part of the Bill, there will be three individual codes of practice: one for the eligibility verification measure, one for the debt recovery measure and one for the information gathering measure. As for exactly how they will work, you will appreciate that we are able to talk only in general terms at the moment, because that will depend on what the final version of the Bill looks like. That is why we do not currently have a code of practice that we can share.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I say a bit about how we intend to engage both Houses on the content of the codes of practice. For the Bill Committee, I will provide an outline of what will be covered by the draft codes of practice as we come to each of the relevant clauses, allowing the Committee to provide feedback on what they feel should be in there.

Beyond that, we intend—there are ongoing engagements, as you heard earlier from, for instance, UK Finance—to publish a draft version of the codes of practice as they pertain to the DWP in time for the House of Lords Committee stage, so it will also have the opportunity to play into the conversation on that. Ultimately, there will be a final statutory public consultation on the content of the codes of practice. It is difficult to say with any sort of exactness or precision what the codes of practice will look like at this stage, without knowing what amendments, if any, will be made to the Bill. But I know that Georgia has a code of practice on her side as well.

Georgia Gould: I do, and the same applies. As we go through the clauses, I will share with the Committee where we are on the codes of practice in relation to those clauses. We are working on the same timeline set out by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. For the PSFA, within the Bill, it requires a code of practice that is particularly focused on penalties, in clause 60. Beyond that mandatory content, the intention is that the code of practice will also include information on safeguards and vulnerability assessments when it applies to the PSFA powers for investigating individuals, and more detailed information on the various reviews and appeals.

[Mike Wood]

Q Andrew, you have just come out of a period in opposition. You will understand the difficulty that this puts on Committee members being asked to consider legislation, fundamental aspects of which will depend on details in the code of practice. You seem to be suggesting that we will not see them until the House of Commons has completed all its stages.

Andrew Western: That is the route we are taking. Obviously, Members have an opportunity to suggest what they would like to see in the code. The code is primarily an operational document rather than one on the general principles in the Bill and what we are trying to achieve through it. I absolutely understand that Members will want to see that, but we are simply not able to bring forward a final code of practice. It would not be possible to do that without knowing what is in the Bill. We can commit to sharing a draft as soon as we are able, but even that would be subject to change. It is not unusual, as I understand it, for this to be the case.

[Mike Wood]

Q You say that you cannot bring forward the code at this point, because the Bill may change depending on amendments, yet you are able to bring forward a draft code ahead of the House of Lords Committee stage, where presumably, you will have rather less control over what amendments are passed. Surely if that argument were to hold at all, it would apply even more strongly to the House of Lords stages than to the House of Commons.

Andrew Western: All I would say is that that is the timeline we are proposing to follow. We will share the draft code of practice as soon as we are able to do so for all the measures that have them.

[Mike Wood]

Q What role will Parliament have in scrutinising those codes of practice?

Andrew Western: The codes of practice will be laid before both Houses. They will be published as the legislation sets out.

[Mike Wood]

Q So they will be published, but in terms of scrutiny, will there be any role for Parliament in agreeing or disregarding those codes?

Andrew Western: I am happy to confirm precisely—because it may be that Members, as we go through the Committee stage, make it very clear what their expectations would be—what the current proposal is before we go into line-by-line scrutiny on Thursday.

[Mike Wood]

Q Why does the decision seem to have been taken not to introduce these as statutory instruments?

Andrew Western: The codes of practice?

[Mike Wood]

Yes.

Andrew Western: Because they are iterative documents that will change as we go through the test-and-learn phase. In particular, we are looking to introduce the eligibility verification measure in quite a cautious manner initially to check that it works, and to check that we do not have the sort of overreach that some witnesses have suggested may be the case. We want to be certain that the false positives that we have talked about and that witnesses have raised are minimised as best as possible. It is to enable flexibility so that we have the maximum potential to make any changes that we require, but obviously we would update the House as and when we were to do that.

[Mike Wood]

Q But Andrew, you will be aware that new statutory instruments can be introduced and passed in Parliament in the space of six weeks. It is not an obstacle to an iterative approach if you choose to have the codes of practice introduced through statutory instruments, as happens in some areas, and take an approach that actually has a formal role for Parliament and the democratic scrutiny that the Government were so keen on when they were in opposition.

Andrew Western: I would be very happy to have that conversation, should you want to table any amendments in that regard.

[Mike Wood]

Q This is looking a lot like the King Henry VIII powers that the Government railed against in opposition for many years.

Andrew Western: I would not accept that and I do not think that that is the case. I would say that we require that flexibility. Even with the six weeks, if there are problems in the process, we would potentially need to act more swiftly than that, based on feedback from stakeholders. As I said, colleagues are very welcome to table amendments if they want to secure any changes in that regard.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Can I ask you a procedural question, Chair? Is it possible to furnish Committee members, through the Clerks, with instances in the last Parliament where codes of practice were missing from legislation? I certainly sat on Bill Committees where we did not even have the costings for Government plans. There seems to be a suggestion that this is not routine or is somehow abnormal. I wonder whether we could have that.

[The Chair]

That is a matter for debate. I think it is probably a question for the Library. Let us carry on with the questioning.

[Mike Wood]

Q If I may continue, and I am drawing to a conclusion, the Cabinet Office has a document, “Guide to Making Legislation”. Are you aware of it?

Andrew Western: Is that to me or Georgia?

[Mike Wood]

It is to you both as Ministers. It is the Government’s “Guide to Making Legislation”.

Andrew Western: Yes.

[Mike Wood]

Q Have you read it?

Andrew Western: Not recently, but I did when I first became a Minister.

[Mike Wood]

Q In appendix E, which relates to codes of practice and legislation, the first paragraph says:

“Where it is proposed to introduce a code of practice in a way or for a purpose which departs from the guidance below, Ministers should be aware that this is likely to be controversial, particularly in the House of Lords.”

Have officials brought that to your attention?

Andrew Western: As I said earlier, we hope to have a draft code of practice by the time we reach the House of Lords Committee Stage. Clearly, alongside consideration of that guidance, as I said—and it was reiterated by Mr Coyle—this has not been unusual practice in recent years, as I understand it.

[Mike Wood]

Q The document goes on to say that

“the drafting of the code ought to begin early enough to enable a decision as to whether statutory provision is required”.

Has that drafting been done early enough?

Andrew Western: As I said, we will debate this in more detail as we come to the relevant stages. I think that we have done this in sufficient time to enable us to consult, as we are required to do, on the statutory code of practice and to ensure that both Houses can see it as it makes its way through the process.

[Mike Wood]

Q Following that, the document states that

“if Parliament is to be asked to enact statutory provisions relating to a code,”

which appears to be the case in this instance,

“a draft of the proposed code should if at all possible be made available so that the appropriateness of the statutory provisions can be properly considered.”

Obviously, that is part of the legislative process. Should we not have that information? Why should only the House of Lords be provided with that?

Andrew Western: I suspect that at that point you are asking a procedural question, so I am not best placed to answer it.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

Q My question is quite straightforward. How much will the Bill save the taxpayer in the welfare fraud space?

Andrew Western: In the DWP space, we estimate that the amount would be £1.5 billion over the forecast period. That roughly equates to around £950 million on the eligibility verification measure, with the overwhelming majority of the rest—in fact, almost all of it—coming from the debt recovery power. There are also potentially significant savings over time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office may want to outline with regard to the PSFA powers. I realise that they are scalable; they start off small-scale. Minister Gould, would you like to come in on the potential?

Georgia Gould: They are more modest in the first instance. We are estimating just under £60 million-worth of savings. We are testing the new models. If the model is successful, there is potential to scale that up. We think that this is the first time we are introducing powers to take on fraud in the wider public sector outside tax and welfare. A huge amount of fraud has gone uninvestigated. We think the deterrent impact of this will be substantial.

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) The Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if—

(a) there is an objective basis for the Minister’s suspicion based on facts, verifiable information or intelligence, and

(b) a reasonable person would be entitled to reach same conclusion based on the same facts, information or intelligence.

(1B) The Minister does not have reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if the Minister’s suspicion—

(a) is based in any way on—

(i) the person’s physical appearance,

(ii) any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 that a person may have or appear to the Minister to have, or

(b) is based solely on any generalisation or stereotype giving rise to a belief that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.”

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, delete “10” and insert “28”.

Amendment 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

“‘reasonable’ means the Minister must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind, and the suspicion that fraudulent activity has taken place must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, verifiable information and or intelligence which indicate that fraudulent activity will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information, and or intelligence.”

[Mike Wood]

Clause 3 would give the PSFA the power to issue information notices to a third party, compelling them to provide information within a deadline. The amendments set out the circumstances in which that would be done and set what we think is a perfectly reasonable test of reasonableness, as well as exploring the time provided for the recipients of notices to respond. Our amendments are designed to probe some areas of this process. The powers given to the Minister for the Cabinet Office in clause 3 are wide-ranging, so we wish to ensure that these are used reasonably and proportionately, and solely in connection with the explicit purpose of the Bill. We have tabled amendments 11, 10, 14, and 9 to that end.

We have to remember that the powers can be used against individuals and small businesses. While we might expect most of the notices to be issued against multinational companies, particularly financial institutions, we also need to consider those who do not have the capacity of larger organisations. The powers must be used reasonably and effectively in all circumstances.

Amendment 11 sets a reasonableness test relating to whether the information being requested is likely to relate to the fraud in question—for example, in private text messages—and therefore whether it is reasonable to ask for that information, and whether the cost involved in recovering the required information is likely to be reasonable and proportionate. The Minister referred to equivalent powers that are available in other forms of investigation that the Government and their agencies and bodies carry out. We see the reasonableness test as equivalent to that which HMRC must meet in its notices.

We also wish to ensure that the powers are not misused, and amendments 9 and 10 are directed towards that purpose. Although clause 3 states that the Minister can use the powers only against someone

“whom the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed fraud against a public authority”

the Bill provides no definition of “reasonable”, so amendments 9 and 10 are designed to fill some of that gap.

Amendment 10 specifies that the Minister for the Cabinet Office

“has reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if…there is an objective basis for the Minister’s suspicion based on facts, verifiable information or intelligence, and…a reasonable person would be entitled to reach same conclusion based on the same facts, information or intelligence.”

We want to be clear about what we do not think are reasonable grounds. These would include, for example, if the Minister’s suspicions were based in any way on a person’s physical appearance—protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 that the person may have, or appear to the Minister to have—or were based solely on any generalisation or stereotype giving rise to a belief that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. We want to ensure that the powers are exercised responsibly and appropriately.

Amendment 9 gives the definition of “reasonable” as meaning that

“the Minister must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind, and the suspicion that fraudulent activity has taken place must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, verifiable information and or intelligence which indicate that fraudulent activity will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information, and or intelligence.”

Amendments 9 and 10 are based on the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are contained in the PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A.

Bearing in mind that these powers will be exercised against individuals, some of whom might struggle to provide information, we want to probe the choice of 10 days as the timeframe in which to provide information. Amendment 14 increases the minimum notice period from 10 working days to 28, which is similar to the standard minimum time that people would expect to be given to respond to written requests for information from HMRC. Given the scope of the information that might be requested, appropriate time must be given to organisations and individuals to comply. External circumstances should also be taken into account when considering the time periods. If an individual is on annual leave or off sick for a few days, they may have less than a week to provide the information or they will face significant fines. That does not seem reasonable.

We are not necessarily saying that 28 days is a better time period than seven, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government set the minimum time that they did. That is particularly pertinent, as failure to provide the information required would carry a civil penalty of £300 a day, which, for an individual, can amount to a considerable sum of money very quickly.

In its current form, without being more specific about what it means to be “reasonable” or expanding the timeframes, we are a little concerned that the powers that clause 3 gives the Minister may not include the necessary checks and balances, so I would appreciate her reassurances on that point.

[Steve Darling]

Perhaps the word that the shadow Minister used most was “reasonableness”. In our strange political world in recent months, the question of what is reasonable in our society has changed significantly following the change of President in the United States. What normal society would expect is “reasonable” of an elected official, both here and in America, gives me, as a Liberal Democrat, cause for concern in relation to how we can make sure that a Bill like this, which gives very significant powers to the state, sets safeguards in stone to protect our communities. We will come to that later, but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister. Although I am sure that we are all reasonable people in this room, others who are unreasonable might take power at a later stage of our lives. With this legislation, how can we put safeguards in place? I hope that we will cover that later, but the Minister’s early thoughts would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

Does the shadow Minister wish to press amendments 10, 14 or 9, which were just debated, to a vote?

[Mike Wood]

As I stated, those are largely probing amendments in areas that we would like to see the Government work on during the passage of the Bill. However, for now, we do not intend to push them to a vote.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Reviews

[Mike Wood]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 18, in clause 4, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

[Mike Wood]

The amendments are all about ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just go back to the same organisation that issued the original notice. Clause 4 will allow for the person to whom the information notice is given to appeal the notice up to seven days after it is issued, but that appeal will go back to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—or, in practice, the PSFA—to review it and decide whether to revoke, amend or uphold the notice. As drafted, it gives the Minister significant power, as really the only responsible person who can review the decision to give the notice.

There therefore appears to be a significant lack of independent oversight. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there is no ability to have an independent appeal of the kind that would generally take place against HMRC decisions and notices, through the first-tier tribunal. That is why we tabled amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18: to change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first-tier tribunal. We are concerned that, given it is the Minister who has been given the power to investigate fraud, it is then a case of allowing the Minister to mark their own homework if they—or the people acting on their behalf—review the decisions themselves.

I would like to understand the Minister’s view on whether that is an effective use of ministerial time and capacity. Does she envisage that any such appeal decisions would be delegated? In the amendments, we propose to replace the Minister with the first-tier tribunal in that process, which would be equivalent to the processes that would be expected when a decision of HMRC is reviewed. Our amendments would ensure that an independent third party is involved with the review process.

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there should be no ability for such an appeal to be made, whether it is made immediately against the notice for information or perhaps as a second appeal stage. We need to be satisfied that there is a good reason why people who are the subject of those notices, which may be quite onerous, particularly for individuals and smaller organisations, should not have the ability to appeal to an independent body. Normally, natural justice would assume that to be the case.

[Steve Darling]

I concur about the safeguarding of individuals. While there may be an independent reviewer or chair, the challenge, for me, is who appoints them. If it ends up being the Minister who appoints the chair, how independent will they be? Given what we are seeing elsewhere in the world, how do we ensure that we build a structure of independence into the Bill that we may not previously have thought was needed? I am somewhat supportive of the proposals from colleagues, but equally, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the challenge.

[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.

Division 1

Ayes: 6

Noes: 10

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

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end insert—

“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.

[Mike Wood]

Amendments 12 and 13 are in a similar vein to amendment 14 —they allow the individual or organisation issued with an information notice to apply to the independent body or board for an extension to the 10 working days within which they are currently required to provide information requested in the notice, if they are reasonably unable to comply. Sorry, have I skipped ahead a section?

[The Chair]

We are discussing amendment 12, grouped with amendment 13.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Feel free to skip ahead to the conclusion.

[Mike Wood]

Sorry, it has been a while since I have been on a Bill Committee.

The amendments would allow the individual or organisation to apply for an extension to the 10 working days within which they are currently required to provide information requested in an information notice, if they are reasonably unable to comply. This is a common sense approach to support people who are engaging with the process and prevent them from being hit with penalties, which was never the intention of the legislation. This is also important because we do not know precisely what information the Minister will be able to ask individuals to provide, other than that an information notice cannot require the giving of particularly sensitive—such as excluded or special procedure—material, as defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This includes confidential business records or journalistic material. Otherwise, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has a very open-ended power to require different types of information. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the Government would consider allowing those issued with information notices to apply specifically for an extension if they cannot reasonably provide the information within the time period requested.

[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.

[Steve Darling]

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

[Mike Wood]

I thank the Minister for her response, which offered some moderate reassurance. We would be comfortable if either it was included in the Bill or we at least had sight of the code of practice, which will actually define that decision-making process. A fundamental flaw of this Bill Committee is that we are being asked to make decisions on something that may be produced in the future, of which we have no advanced sight. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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)

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. Clause 5 is an explanation of the principles related to information sharing that pertain to the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Cabinet Office. It sets out how the disclosure of information would work for the purpose of facilitating the Minister’s exercise of the core functions. It refers to how the Minister may use information disclosed under subsection (1); the specific purposes for which it may be disclosed; and what the Minister may not use information for. Information must not be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was disclosed and may not be disclosed to any other person without the consent of the Minister. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

Clause 5 will give the Minister enormous powers to request and share information for the purpose of facilitating the Minister’s exercise of the core functions under the Bill. Given that the Minister’s core functions are to decide whether to investigate and take enforcement action, we are concerned that almost any information could be shared to facilitate the making of those decisions.

Likewise, the Minister may share information onward. If they give consent, the information may go further yet. Again, this is a case of the Minister marking their own homework. They get to decide who knows what and whether it gets shared onwards, without any external oversight from an impartial third party. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what sort of information the Government envisage being requested, under what circumstances, and what safeguards will apply to the sharing of that information.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I would not want to second-guess the specifics of what may be required in the sharing of information on a case-by-case basis; clearly that sort of speculation may restrict us unnecessarily. What I would say, however, is that the independent oversight powers laid out for the execution of the PSFA’s work would be in place to ensure that if anybody, up to and including the Minister, were considered to have overstretched their powers, it would be able to comment and investigate as necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Amendment of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I am sure that colleagues will agree that the amendment is straightforward. It will limit the designation of the Cabinet Office as a relevant public authority for the purposes of part 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, so that it is designated only in so far as it relates to the Public Sector Fraud Authority.

Clause 6 sets out the purposes of the amendment to the 2016 Act and is straightforward in its terms. It will make a small tweak before the entry for the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service to insert “Cabinet Office” and the relevant provision.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.)

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Georgia Gould (Queen’s Park and Maida Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck.

Clause 13 allows the Government to use the proposed recovery powers to recover late penalty payments and associated interest deriving from the civil penalty regime that is introduced in chapter 5 and any additional relevant costs, either awarded by a court or tribunal or incurred in exercising the recovery powers. In all of these cases, money will be owed to the public purse. Once it has been recovered, it can be used for public good. If these sums were to remain unrecovered, it would not have this positive impact.

We are building strong safeguards and appeal routes into all our measures, including on the application of penalties. Decisions to impose a penalty will be taken by authorised officers, and we have discussed the training that they will have. It is also intended that the debt recovery powers will be overseen by the independent oversight mechanisms, which we will turn to later in the session. Where we are justified in using the proposed recovery powers to seek payments directly from bank accounts and pay-as-you-earn earnings, we want to be able to use them. The penalties and costs will all derive from the fraud investigations that the Public Sector Fraud Authority will carry out.

Clause 14 restricts when chapter 4 recovery powers can be used to recover penalties. They can only be used when the timeframe for appealing a penalty has passed without any appeal being bought or any appeal against the penalty has been finally determined by a tribunal. Penalties are issued for important reasons to encourage compliance and to help make the whole Bill work effectively, and to help make the PSFA effective in its efforts to tackle fraud against the public sector.

Penalties are not something that can be put into the back of a drawer and forgotten about. Fraud is an expensive business for Government. It costs us money when people defraud us. It costs us money to investigate, to take proceedings through courts and to pursue recovery. It is not fair that these costs are shouldered by law-abiding citizens. It is right that those who do not follow correct procedures are penalised and have to pay.

Clauses 13 and 14 enable us to hold debtors to account, driving up recovery of what is owed by letting us use the recovery powers in a wider but proportionate manner and with the appropriate safeguards and appeal routes in place. However, this has to be done with respect of due and proper process, which is exactly what this clause mandates. These clauses are important safeguards that rightly prioritise the liable person’s right to appeal a penalty decision over the recovery of the penalty. It provides us with operational flexibility to recover a range of debts, driving up the value for money of our operations. I commend clauses 13 and 14 to the Committee.

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

Clause 13 sets out that the Minister can use powers to recover amounts from a penalty, such as late payment, but also relevant costs to be awarded by a court or tribunal. Relevant costs rightly also include costs that are reasonably incurred by the Minister in exercising the powers in chapter 4.

Can the Minister share details on what this measure might include? What is reasonable and what are the expected amounts that might be recovered in this way? Does this also cover legal costs—for example, court fees and legal representation? Will it include investigatory costs, such as the use of forensic accountants or data analysts? Does it extend to administrative costs, such as the work of civil servants processing cases? How is reasonableness to be determined within these clauses? What criteria or guidelines will be used to assess whether a cost is reasonable and will there be an independent review process to prevent excessive or disproportionate costs from being been claimed? Will the affected individuals or entities have the right to challenge, at an appropriately early stage, costs that they deem to be unreasonable?

On the expected scale of the costs, do the Government have an estimate of the average cost that could be incurred and recovered under these provisions, and will there be caps or limits on the amount that can be recovered from an individual or organisation? Does the Minister expect those to vary? How will cost recovery be monitored and reported to ensure transparency?

Given the potential financial impact on those subject to enforcement proceedings, it is crucial that clear safeguards, transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that costs remain proportionate and fair. I would appreciate further detail from the Minister about how these costs will be defined, managed and reviewed.

Clause 14 provides that the Minister can recover an amount due in respect of a penalty only when the time for appealing has passed without an appeal, or any appeal has been finally determined. We think that that is perfectly sensible and will support the clause.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In the oral evidence, Professor Levi highlighted some powers regarding asset freezing that the police have had since 2017. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on whether these powers could have a significant impact in this area of the law—in particular, whether they would apply to international organisations, and the impact on individuals. I think that would be helpful to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

As the Minister said, clause 15 establishes that a payable amount is a recoverable amount as defined in previous provisions of the legislation, while clause 16 further grants the Minister the power to apply to the county court for a recovery order. That ensures that a recoverable amount is treated as an enforceable payment under section 85 of the County Courts Act 1984, or as if it was directly ordered by the court.

While the mechanism for recovery is now clear, there are important practical questions about its implementation. First, we would like further reassurance about the impact on the county court system. What projection have the Government made regarding the number of cases that they expect to be brought under these provisions? Given the existing backlog in county courts, what assessment has been made of the additional burden that these measures will place on the system? Has the Minister engaged with her colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that county courts have the capacity and resources to handle these cases efficiently and in a timely manner?

To develop further the issue of efficiency and speed of resolution, what is the expected timeframe for these cases to be resolved once an application is made? Do the Government anticipate delays due to a high caseload in county courts, and if so, what mitigations are they putting in place to help to deal with those delays? Will the Government publish guidance or at least a framework on the expected process and timeline for obtaining a recovery order?

It is essential that these powers do not result in undue delays, excessive court burdens, or legal uncertainty for those subject to a recovery order. Further clarification from the Minister would help to ensure that this system functions fairly and efficiently—balancing the need for enforcement and fairness to the taxpayer to recover sums that are owed, with the available judicial capacity.

[Georgia Gould]

We have published an impact assessment. That says that with the current size of the enforcement unit, we expect there to be about eight cases, so a small number, but of course if the powers work well and we expand the unit, that will increase. As the hon. Member would expect, we have engaged heavily across Government on all these questions. The critical thing is that there is significant deterrence to having to go through a court process—in terms of the interest that is going to grow on the debt, and the fees that would be accompanied by the legal costs and other costs associated with that process. Our hope is that the majority of people will go through a voluntary process—that will be both easier and less expensive for them—and that these powers will be used primarily as a deterrent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Direct deduction orders

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

--- Later in debate ---

Direct deduction orders, as outlined in the clauses, are key to seeking the efficient recovery of public moneys, while ensuring that recovery is fair and proportionate with robust safeguards to protect those in vulnerable situations. They also ensure the fair and appropriate protection of the rights of the individuals involved, allowing for informed decision making and protecting non-liable parties in joint accounts from unwarranted deductions. Having outlined the key provisions in the clauses, I commend them to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 17 establishes that when a payable amount is recoverable, the Minister can issue an order for direct deductions from a liable person’s bank account, either through regular deductions or a lump sum payment, as she said. Clause 18 further clarifies that those deductions can be taken from any account in which the liable person has a beneficial interest. That is extremely important, given the difficulty in establishing the different networks of bank accounts that may be held, particularly in cases of serious and organised fraud. We welcome the flexibility the clause introduces.

Although the provisions aim to improve efficiency in recovering public funds, there are still questions regarding fairness, proportionality and the safeguards that are in place, starting with the definition of beneficial interest in clause 18. Clause 18(1) allows the Minister to make an order on an account that is held by the liable person and contains an amount that the Minister considers the liable person has a beneficial interest in. What criteria or evidence does the Minister expect the PSFA to use in determining a person’s beneficial interest in an account, given the complex ownership and title structures that may be in place? On the flip side of that, how will the rights of third parties be protected, particularly if funds belong to someone other than the liable person that might be held in a shared account?

That brings us to the question of joint accounts. Clause 20 assumes that a joint account is split equally between account holders unless the Minister has reason to believe otherwise. What types of evidence would be accepted to demonstrate that the liable person’s beneficial interest is different from an equal split? The Minister referred to bank statements, but would those investigating also look at legal documents or perhaps third-party testimony? Would that be appropriate in some circumstances? Will additional checks be carried out to ensure that joint account holders are not unfairly penalised for debts that might not be theirs? It is not uncommon for people in marriages or long-term partnerships to have a domestic joint account. It might well be that one of the partners in the relationship is, in practical terms, paying more into an account, but also using the account more than the other partner, despite the two names being equally on the face of the account.

Clause 21, on the notice and the right to respond, sets out the process of notifying banks and liable persons before deductions are made, and includes provision allowing them to make representations within 28 days. The clause allows the Minister to notify the bank first before informing the liable person, to prevent account closure, asset withdrawal or other measures being taken to deprive the taxpayer of the recovery of sums that might rightfully be recoverable. Can the Minister point to a precedent for that approach in other areas of law? How does that align with best practices in financial enforcement?

Although clause 21 allows the liable person to make representations to the Minister, there is not an explicit provision for an independent appeal mechanism. Is there a reason why the Bill does not provide for such a process? Would the Government consider an independent review mechanism, beyond the systematic review that is in place for the Bill, to ensure that decisions are fair and transparent and do not disproportionately affect people in individual cases?

To go back to the potential risks of financial and domestic abuse that I touched on earlier, deducting money from joint accounts could create serious risks for individuals in financially abusive relationships. What safeguards will be put in place to prevent financial hardship, particularly for vulnerable individuals who might not actually be responsible for the debts that the PSFA seeks to recover? What specialist training will staff receive to identify and mitigate the risk of financial or domestic abuse? The effectiveness of the measures will depend on strong safeguards, clear guidance and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure fairness and proportionality. I would appreciate further clarification from the Minister on those points.

[Steve Darling]

I rise to speak about clause 20 in particular. Liberal Democrats are heartened by clause 18, which clearly says that if there is another account the money could be drawn from, that will be utilised. However, we are particularly concerned about coercive and controlling relationships.

In my 30 years serving the people of Torbay as a councillor, I found on a number of occasions that people who are happy to conduct fraud against other parties, whether the state or other organisations, are often very happy to financially abuse their partners as well. That leaves their partners in a very vulnerable situation. I found that often the individuals affected are very trusting people who have vulnerabilities elsewhere in their lives, which would be recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions if it were supporting them.

I really want to hear from the Minister how the DWP is going to support people and be alive to the risk. It is about making sure that there is a culture of knowledge of the issue among the investigators. Although it is essential that we get the money from fraud in, we do not want collateral damage on people who have been abused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

The clause outlines the information notices that can be given to a bank, how the bank must comply, the information it must provide and how the information can be used.

To determine whether to make a direct deduction order, an account information notice or a general information notice may be given. This is crucial in ensuring that sufficient financial information is gathered to facilitate informed debt recovery decisions, thereby enabling the effective recovery of public funds. The information provided by the banks is necessary and proportionate to ensure that the liable person’s financial situation is considered before a direct deduction order is made. This approach is already used by HMRC for its comparable direct recovery of debt, and it is also requested by the DWP in part 2 of the Bill.

The information gathered will protect vulnerable people, prevent hardship and safeguard non-liable joint account holders, while acknowledging the vital need to recover public funds lost to fraud and error. Banks must comply with a notice under the clause, and may be liable to a penalty for failure to comply without a reasonable excuse—this will ensure that the measures are adhered to. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from notifying account holders that they have received a notice under clause 19, to avoid tipping off debtors and thereby prevent money from being moved from the account. Overall, the clause is necessary in furthering the effective recovery of public funds. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 19, I commend it to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 19 grants the Minister significant powers to obtain financial information from banks before making a direct deduction order, including the ability to request three months of bank statements, or perhaps statements covering a longer period where specified. The power to issue an account information notice requires banks to provide statements to determine what deduction should be made, and the power to issue a general information notice requires banks to disclose an individual’s account details, balances and correspondence addresses.

Clearly, in many investigations there will be good reason why some or all of that information is necessary, appropriate and justified. Of course, some of the information will be extremely sensitive, so we need necessary safeguards and appropriate oversight to ensure that sensitive information is requested and subsequently shared only where it is directly necessary to the investigation, and where the Minister or PSFA has justifiable grounds to think either that an error is costing the public sector significant amounts of money or that there has been a case of deliberate fraud. As I said about the previous grouping, a prohibition on banks informing the liable person that an information notice has been issued is a sensible measure to prevent that person from taking action to frustrate attempts to recover money that ought to be recovered—they could, for example, empty their account before deductions could take place. In principle, we support powers designed to ensure effective debt recovery under the right circumstances and when used in the right way, but there are several concerns regarding proportionality and oversight when it comes to protecting legitimate privacy rights.

First, on the unlimited timeframe for bank statements, clause 19 states that the Minister must obtain at least three months’ worth of statements, but can request a longer period if specified in the notice. What criteria will determine whether more than three months of statements is needed? Is there a reason why no upper limit is specified within the clause on how far back those requests can go? Clearly, the further back that requests are made for a bank statement, the greater the risk that they could lead to overly intrusive requests that may not be entirely necessary for the debt recovery.

On the broad information-gathering powers, the general information notice allows the Minister to demand a full list of all accounts held by the liable person, their details and their addresses. Presumably, that is for the specific financial institution that the notice refers to. Are there any safeguards to prevent excessive or disproportionate use of those notices? Must there be a reasonable suspicion or at least a threshold to be met before those powers can be exercised? The Bill states that the Minister can only request information to exercise their core functions, but that is obviously a very broad measure so could be interpreted very broadly.

Banks would be prohibited from informing the liable person that an information notice had been issued. Although that prevents individuals from evading deductions, it means that they may be unaware of a Government investigation into their finances even after the event. Are there any circumstances in which the liable person might be informed that their financial data has been accessed—perhaps after an investigation has been closed? Does the Minister envisage any independent oversight to ensure that those powers are used proportionately?

On the burden on banks and financial institutions, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon and I have tabled amendments to be debated later in the proceedings, these powers will require banks to process and respond to Government information notices, likely adding costs and administrative burdens to those institutions. Have the Government consulted with financial institutions to assess how proportionate the kinds of requests envisaged under the Bill are, the ease or the difficulty of compliance, and the estimated cost to banks and the financial sector? During evidence last week, some financial institutions did not seem to have any idea of what scale of burden that would be putting on their members. Again, a large part of this came back to the lack of visibility of draft codes of practice.

On privacy and data protection concerns, although the Bill states that the Minister can only request relevant information, that can be interpreted broadly. What legal protections exist to ensure that financial data is accessed and used appropriately for the very narrow purposes for which these clauses are intended? Will there be an independent review mechanism to assess whether those powers are used lawfully and proportionately?

Finally, given the wide-ranging implication of the powers, further clarity and safeguards are needed to balance effective debt recovery against individual privacy rights. I would welcome further details from the Minister on those critical issues, so that we can be comfortable going forward that the wide-ranging powers that we would be granting to the Minister and the PSFA cannot be misused and that individual privacy rights will be protected and respected.

[Steve Darling]

I ask the Minister to reflect on how speedily the Bill is going through Parliament. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, financial institutions are not clear about the impact on or the cost to them. When we legislate in haste, challenges will often come out of the woodwork in the longer term. In this particular area, again, the issue is about the safeguards. We assume that we are dealing with reasonable people, but we do not have to look far in international news to see what can go wrong when unreasonable people gain power.

Where are the safeguards? When holding a Minister to account, it is often assumed that the Minister will be a reasonable person. Sadly, however, in the future the Minister may not be a reasonable person, so where are the safeguards for individuals? Also, as alluded to earlier in the debate, it would be helpful to have some assurance on the banks and the impact on them.

--- Later in debate ---

Amount of deductions

[Mike Wood]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 22, page 14, line 27, leave out from “applies,” to “and” in line 28 and insert

“the amounts credited to the account in the relevant period,”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 23 stand part.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 22 outlines how much can be directly deducted from a liable person’s bank account, while clause 23 specifies the information that must be included in direct deduction orders. These provisions are central to the enforcement mechanism and yet there are many questions that remain about their practical implementation and fairness.

As we have said many times in Committee, it is very difficult to assess how the system will work without seeing a draft code of practice. As Anna Hall from the Money and Pensions Service said when giving evidence last Tuesday,

“the code of conduct will be the critical thing. One of the things is that if frontline staff are not picking up vulnerabilities, or they are not trained in how to sort out affordability, in empathic listening or in all the protocols about how to have different types of conversations with people in different types of vulnerable situations—if those things are not in place—some of the processes in the Bill will not be as effective. It comes down to the training for frontline staff, and the capacity and processes to then follow up on what has actually been disclosed, that will enable those repayment plans to be put in place before those later processes. If those are not in place, that could cause some real issues. How successful this Bill is will come down to the code of conduct, as many have said.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 30, Q49.]

The Minister kindly promised during earlier sessions that:

“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.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 92.]

This is another occasion where it would be helpful, as the Minister suggested, to know a bit more about the code of practice, to enable us to scrutinise the provisions better. As witnesses have said, the code of practice is key to how effective the provisions will be. The effectiveness of the Bill will depend on matters such as the training for frontline staff on assessing affordability and vulnerabilities, the processes to evaluate hardship and to create fair payment plans, and the protocols to identify and support people in vulnerable situations.

Can the Minister provide further information about the code of practice, when it will be available for scrutiny and how it will relate to those elements of these clauses? How will the direct deduction system work in practice? As I say, this is a question about staff training and decision making; it will be an operational matter rather than something that can necessarily be directed from Westminster or Whitehall, so how will staff determine a suitable recovery amount and timeline? What principles will guide repayment plans, and how will assessments be made to ensure that affordability and prevent hardship?

Without knowing those matters, it is difficult to judge the appropriateness of some parts of these clauses, because there obviously will be some vulnerable individuals who might be subject to some of the measures in these clauses. What safeguards will be in place for those who require additional support? Will special provisions exist for individuals facing mental health issues, financial abuse or crisis situations?

I turn to the limits on deduction amounts. This is an area where we think the Government are possibly not going far enough: they are setting a maximum deduction limit even when sufficient funds exist and even when the Minister is satisfied that there has been deliberate fraud and an intention to deprive the taxpayer of money that should rightfully be being spent on public purposes.

Obviously, there are some safeguards in the clauses relating to hardship and essential living costs. The legislation states that deductions must not

“cause…hardship in meeting essential living expenses,”

but just how is that hardship to be assessed? Would someone who fraudulently obtained money be allowed to retain it if they successfully argued that they would suffer hardship from repaying it, even if they were never entitled to the money in the first place? And where does that line fall? Presumably, we would not expect them to be able to retain money to allow them to lead a certain quality of life that they may be used to, but that is obviously very different to being able to pay essential bills.

Under the Bill, in cases of fraud, only 40% of credited amounts can be deducted in the relevant period. We are not sure why that cap is in place when the individual was never entitled to the money. If a person has sufficient funds and there has been a conscious—perhaps even organised—attempt to defraud the public sector, why limit recovery rather than allowing full repayment?

That brings me to amendment 19, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. It proposes removing the 40% cap to ensure full recovery under this legislation where possible and subject, obviously, to the safeguards to which I have referred—the hardship test and the independent oversight that is contained within the clauses.

Mrs Lewell-Buck, if you had defrauded the taxpayer out of £100,000—I am not for a moment suggesting that you would—and £100,000 happened to be visible within your bank account, and the Minister was satisfied that that was the result of a conscious course of action on your part to defraud the taxpayer and that there was no reason to imagine that losing it was going to cause you obvious hardship, why should you be allowed to keep £60,000 of that £100,000 in your bank account, even though the money was simply not yours? In that hypothetical situation—I ought to repeat that—it would be stolen money. It does not seem right that the legislation appears to protect 60% of defrauded money and prevents recovery through these mechanisms, so I intend to push amendment 19 to a Division. Who is subject to the safeguards in the clause? If the Government are confident that those safeguards are robust enough to apply to the first 40%, it seems that they ought to be robust enough to apply to the remaining 60% as well.

Returning to clause 22, what happens if too much is deducted? The Bill states that the Minister must not deduct more than the payable amount, which is a sensible and logical bar to set. However, what mechanisms exist to correct over-deductions? What recourse does a liable person have if an error is made and they suffer loss as a result of an over-deduction?

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Is the shadow Minister suggesting a level of deductions that is acceptable? The amount that the Department for Work and Pensions can claim back has fluctuated in recent years. Are the Opposition proposing a level at which that threshold should be set?

[Mike Wood]

Yes; it is set out quite clearly in amendment 19.

[Neil Coyle]

I am not talking about the amount for those who have committed fraud but for the second group that the shadow Minister mentioned, where there perhaps has been a mistake.

[Mike Wood]

In the case of non-fraudulent claims, where the Minister is not satisfied that there has been fraud on the part of the liable person, I would be inclined to go with the Government’s figure of 20%. That is reasonable in the case of errors, and it obviously allows for longer-term recovery where a genuine mistake has been made. Where there is deemed to have been fraudulent activity, it does not make sense to give those responsible the protection of protecting 60% of the money that they have stolen.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the shadow Minister’s other concern, with those who have committed fraud, that he thinks the payment should be faster? The Bill allows for 100% of this falsely claimed sum to be recouped, but he seems to be suggesting that he would like to see that done faster. Is that the nature of the amendment?

[Mike Wood]

Obviously, the Bill allows for sums to be recouped through regular earnings. Where money is in a bank account, we have established that the money is there from the information notices and other measures in the Bill. If the full amount that has been defrauded is available within the account, it seems to make little sense not to be able recover that sum from the account, rather than relying on a deduction of earnings order.

Clause 23(5) requires banks to comply with direct deduction orders. Have the financial institutions been consulted on those obligations and are they content with them? As was said earlier, the evidence that we heard last Tuesday suggested that many financial institutions did not seem to have a grasp of what those obligations and burdens might look like, as well as the costs that would arise.

To conclude, the effectiveness of these provisions will depend heavily on the codes of practice on staff training and on fair procedures. Further clarification is needed to ensure deductions are proportionate, transparent and do not cause undue hardship, particularly in cases of fraud and financial vulnerability. But where there has been demonstrable fraud, the Opposition see no reason to protect 60% of credit in a bank account where it may be linked to conscious efforts to defraud the taxpayer. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the amendment and to clarify an error that I made in a previous discussion that might have contributed to some confusion. When I talked about the recovery of debt and a limit to the amount that will be recovered, I mentioned up to 40% of assets when I meant to say credited amounts. To be clear, in the instance that the shadow Minister mentioned—say the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire defrauded the Government, they had £200,000 in their account and it was a lump sum, the powers would enable the PSFA to recover that money, with the safeguards of not leaving that person in financial destitution. The 40% is related to ongoing repayments and the speed of repayment. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Member.

To the points that Opposition Members have made about vulnerability and training, the PSFA authorised officers will be highly trained. They are subject to professional training and a code of ethics within that. That includes the kind of professional curiosity that the hon. Member for Torbay talked about. On debt recovery, they will work to establish debt practice, including the debt management vulnerability toolkit, which is publicly available. I would be pleased to send him those documents so he can understand the vulnerability assessments that will be made and scrutinise them.

To go through the detail of the clauses, specifically for a regular direct deduction order, the total deductions in a 28-day period must not exceed either 40% or 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period: for fraud, 40% is the maximum; for error, the maximum is 20%. Throughout the Bill, we have sought to bring powers that are used elsewhere into the PSFA, not to create brand new powers for the PSFA. This provides assurance of their effective and proportionate use, and we are doing the same here. The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation, such as the DWP’s existing direct earnings attachment powers and the Child Maintenance Service deduction from earnings order powers.

[Mike Wood]

I thank the Minister for giving us some clarification on that, but the direct deduction is different from an earning attachment where there is likely to be another similar amount coming in the following month. The Minister suggested I might have £200,000 in my account, which I think would raise a few eyebrows all around. But if all £200,000 had been the result of fraud from the public sector, and I chose to put that regular direct deduction order in place, my understanding of clause 22(3) is that in the first month the maximum that could be deducted would be 40% of £200,000—which is £80,000.

[Georgia Gould]

That is right.

[Mike Wood]

That would leave £120,000, which would mean that in the second month, presumably the most that could be deducted if no further money had been paid into the into the account would be £48,000.

[Georgia Gould]

First, I want to make absolutely clear that I was not accusing the hon. Member of any fraud, but just using a hypothetical. In that instance, the PSFA would use the lump sum direct deduction orders, so they would be able to take the full amount. They would not need to use the direct earnings attachment. It would be a lump sum direct deduction order that would recover that money. As I said, there are no limits to that, except that it does not cause hardship in meeting essential living expenses. I hope that provides some reassurance.

The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation. The amendment seeks to remove the 40% cap for fraud, allowing a higher percentage of regular deductions to be made. To be absolutely clear, for lump sum direct deduction orders, there is no maximum limit on the total amount of deductions. However, the lump sum deduction must still adhere to the core principles, in meeting essential living expenses and be otherwise fair. That ensures that where a higher proportion of the payable amount is present in the account, we can recover the debt more efficiently while maintaining those key safeguards.

We are also able to issue a lump sum direct deduction order and then establish a regular direct deduction order. That allows us to take an initial higher amount of deduction, with regular payments thereafter where appropriate. This is a better route than allowing for a higher level of deductions. It builds on established practice, is proportionate while still being impactful, and it limits the disincentive to earn that an unlimited regular deduction would create. A too-high regular deduction would disincentivise earnings so strongly that it would result in slower, not faster, recovery of funds for our public services.

I turn to clause 22, which sets out the amount of deductions that there may be under an order. We have ensured that the amount of debt we collect at any given time is fair. That is why we established maximum limits based on whether debt was accrued due to fraud or error. We have discussed the safeguards and precedent at length, and the powers here build on precedent across Government. A key consideration throughout the creation of the debt measures was to robustly prevent hardship, learning from best practice. The challenge was to balance that with the need to send a strong deterrent message to those who have the means to pay their fraud and error-related debt to Government, but refuse to do so.

Clause 22 caters for that by ensuring that the terms of the order will not cause the liable person, any other account holder, or a person living with or financially dependent on the liable person or any other account holder, hardship in meeting essential living expenses. To ensure we include other considerations outside of this list, the terms of the order are also required to be otherwise fair in all circumstances.

Clause 23 provides the contents and effect of direct deduction orders. Regular and lump sum direct deduction orders must specify the amount, or a method for calculating the amounts, to be deducted and when. A regular deduction may specify different amounts or different methods to be deducted at different times. For example, the first deducted amount may be higher than the following payments to recover the debt in the most efficient way possible. Deductions may not be made until 28 days after an order has been made. That provides a safeguard for the liable person, allowing them the requisite time and opportunity to request a review under clause 45. Banks must comply with the direct deduction order, whether regular or lump sum, to ensure adherence to these measures. A penalty may be imposed for failure to comply under clause 53.

Clauses 22 and 23 send a strong message to those with fraud and error-related debt to the Government, while preventing hardship and protecting those who are vulnerable. They play an essential role in the operation of a direct deduction order and align with the core principle of seeking the effective recovery of public funds.

I have set out the powers that are available under the Bill, but as I said earlier, they do not prevent the Government also being able to use powers that are already available, such as applying to the courts to seize assets. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 22 and 23, I commend both to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

Given the Minister’s reassurances, I will not press amendment 19 to a Division now, but we may wish to come back to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Bank’s administrative costs

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Report on cost implications for banks—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”

Amendment 23, in clause 103, page 63, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.

(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”

[Georgia Gould]

Clause 24 enables a bank to deduct administrative costs that it has reasonably incurred when complying with a direct deduction order from the liable person’s account. This provision is essential to ensure that banks are adequately compensated for the administrative efforts required to comply with the orders, thereby facilitating the efficient operation of debt recovery processes while protecting account holders from undue financial strain. A direct deduction order will then specify how the bank can deduct its administrative costs while complying with the maximum amount of total deductions as specified in the clause 22.

Clause 37 contains a power to make further provision through regulations as to the administrative charges which can be imposed by the banks. That power will be used to introduce a cap on the charges which can be imposed under this clause and which can be adjusted in line with inflation and to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. The amount may be deducted by the bank immediately prior to the direct deduction order. To safeguard against that causing unintended hardship, the question of deducting the bank’s administrative costs for the liable person must be taken into account when complying with the hardship considerations outlined in clause 22. That will ensure that the direct deduction order and deduction of the bank’s administrative costs do not cause the liable person, other account holders, those living with the liable person or joint account holder or those financially dependent on the liable person or joint account holder hardship in meeting essential living expenses and that the deductions are otherwise fair in all circumstances.

Regarding the burdens on the financial services sector, the Government are extremely mindful of the burdens that the Bill places on industry, including financial institutions. We want to ensure that banks are not subjected to disproportionate burdens or costs in complying with these measures. As I have outlined, that is why we met with key representatives of the finance industry, including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies and the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that there is close and sustained engagement on this Bill. We heard directly from UK Finance in evidence last Tuesday. The finance sector has supported the Bill’s objectives and there are constructive conversations already taking place. The direct deduction order powers in this Bill align with those existing powers and we will continue working with the DWP to align direct deduction order processes across both Departments where possible to simplify implementation.

[Mike Wood]

As the Minister said, the clause allows for deductions from a liable person’s account to include reasonable costs incurred by the bank in processing the deduction order. While the clause will ensure that banks can recoup legitimate administrative expenses, several important questions arise about fairness, oversight and overall financial impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

The clause sets out the action to be taken if the amount in the account is lower than the amount specified in the direct deduction order. Should that situation arise in relation to a lump sum direct deduction order, no deduction is to be made by the bank, and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. If it occurs in relation to a regular deduction order, the order is to be read as requiring the deduction to be made on the same day the following week. If the amount in the account still remains lower, no deduction is to be made and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. That approach ensures that individuals are not unduly penalised or driven into financial hardship because of insufficient funds, while maintaining the integrity of the debt recovery process through prompt communication and reassessment. Having outlined the key provisions of the clause, I commend it to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

The clause outlines the procedure when a bank account does not contain sufficient funds to fulfil a direct deduction order. The key provisions are as follows. For lump sum deduction, if the full amount is not available, no deduction is made and the Minister is notified. For regular deductions, if the necessary funds are not available, an attempt is to be made again on the same day the following week. If funds remain insufficient, no deduction is made and the Minister is notified.

I have some key questions and concerns as to what happens next. Once the Minister is notified, what are the next steps? Does the notification trigger further action to recover the money through other means? Is there a set timeframe in which the Minister must decide on further steps? Does the Minister have discretion to determine the best course of action, or are there prescribed steps that must follow? If funds are unavailable in the specified account, is there a process to check whether the liable person has other accounts in their name with other financial institutions that may have sufficient funds? Would the Minister have the power to issue a further general information notice to a bank in order to identify other accounts that could be used for recovery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Direct deduction orders will be an effective tool in recovering money owed to the public sector. However, it is important that we include measures in the Bill to make clear the obligations of banks and account holders with regard to the orders.

Clause 26 introduces restrictions on accounts from the perspective of banks. The bank must ensure that the account is not closed at the request of the account holder. If the notices relates to a lump sum direct deduction order, the bank must also secure that no transactions occur that would reduce the balance below the amount specified on the order, or the bank may transfer the specified amount, or the amount in the account if it is lower, into a hold account created by the bank to protect it. The bank must ensure that no transaction occurs that would result in the hold account’s balance falling below the amount transferred into it. When a bank transfers an amount into a hold account, it must ensure that in doing so, it does not cause any disadvantage to the liable person or any account holder. These provisions are essential and are a key safeguard to ensure that funds required for recovery are preserved while also protecting account holders from any disadvantage, thereby maintaining trust and fairness in the enforcement process.

Clause 27 imposes restrictions on account holders to prevent them from taking any action that may frustrate the effect of the first notice or direct deduction order, which the shadow Minister raised concerns about. To clarify, frustrating the effect of the first order in this context means frustrating the effect of the proposed direct deduction order, the terms of which are set out in the first notice. Frustrating the effect of the first notice or the final direct deduction order might include a liable person creating a new bank account in order to redirect the payment of their salary, or the liable person falsifying the extent of their protected essential living expenses.

These restrictions are vital to ensure that funds necessary for debt recovery are not deliberately concealed or moved, thereby upholding the fairness and integrity of the public fund recovery system. They are also balanced within the wider direct deduction order measure, which includes review and appeal rights that are also intended to be subject to independent oversight, to be discussed later. Should a person frustrate the effect of the first order or direct deduction notice, a trained authorised officer may decide to impose a penalty under clause 53.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 26 places significant responsibilities on banks once a direct deduction order has been issued. The bank must ensure that the account is not closed while a deduction order is active, prevent transactions that would reduce the balance below the required deduction amount—for example, the transfer of funds—and ensure that these actions do not cause disadvantage to the liable person.

I have a few questions about those responsibilities. How are banks expected to assess disadvantage or hardship, based on what is likely to be very limited information available to them about their account holders? What guidance or criteria will be provided to banks to determine what constitutes a disadvantage to the liable person? How can banks assess the potential immediate impact of blocking transactions, including preventing spending on essentials—for example, food or utility bills—and any consequences that might arise from that? How will they consider longer-term financial obligations, such as rent or mortgage payments, disruption to which could cause significant hardship?

The lack of a code of practice makes it difficult to properly scrutinise these measures. The code of practice is expected to provide crucial details on how banks should balance enforcement with protecting individuals from undue harm, but we will have to wait until after we have made decisions in Committee and in the Bill’s remaining stages to see it. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how these concerns will be addressed in the code of practice and provide as much specificity as possible.

Clause 27 states that account holders must not take actions that frustrate the direct deduction process, such as closing the account, moving funds elsewhere to evade the deduction or engaging in other actions that undermine the effectiveness of the recovery process. The matter of penalties for non-compliance needs to be looked at carefully. What penalties will be imposed if an account holder deliberately frustrates the deduction order? Would non-compliance be treated as a civil offence, or could it lead to criminal penalties in cases of deliberate obstruction? If the financial institution failed to prevent it, would that be a civil offence, or would it be seen as a regulatory issue?

Is there an appeal mechanism if an account holder can prove that a transaction was necessary and not an attempt to evade the deduction? For example, what would happen if someone urgently needed to pay rent or buy medicine and did not realise it would interfere with the deduction order? Would there be any flexibility in cases of financial difficulty, and how would that be assessed?

Given the significant responsibilities placed on banks and the potential impact on individuals, further clarity is needed on how banks will be guided in assessing disadvantage and hardship, how the code of practice will address these concerns and ensure practical implementation, what penalties will apply if an account holder frustrates the deduction process or if a financial institution fails to prevent such frustration, and what appeals or exceptions exist for necessary transactions that unintentionally interfere with the deduction order. Those clarifications are essential for ensuring that the system is both effective and fair.

[Georgia Gould]

It is important to set out again that these powers will be used in the last instance and, in many cases we hope they will be a deterrent. In the majority of cases, we expect people to engage with the authorised officers and come to a voluntary agreement. If people do not agree, the powers will be used only after an application to a court to determine the ability to recover that debt. In the first instance, we expect these powers to be used in a very limited fashion; the impact assessment talks about fewer than 10 cases a year. There is ample time to work through with banks how these powers are used and ensure that it is proportionate.

The shadow Minister raised concerns that the powers are too harsh in some cases and that they will leave people vulnerable in others, which shows the balance involved. The measures have been carefully thought through, and they include safeguards for vulnerability but also the ability to step in if people are deliberately frustrating the process.

We will issue guidance to banks on how the three months of bank statements will be determined, and authorised officers will work with banks to ensure that this works effectively. The shadow Minister asked about the penalty. It will be a £300 fixed penalty notice for failing to comply. As with every part of this, people will be able to request a review and, ultimately, to appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

A priority when designing the Bill was that its powers be sufficiently balanced by strong oversight and transparent safeguards to protect the vulnerable and guard against human error. Rightly, a large number of the questions from the Committee have probed that. Clause 56 is a key part of that design. It ensures that certain steps must be taken and assured before a penalty may be issued; these steps cannot be rushed, skipped or subverted. As I have confirmed, the application of these powers will be strictly limited to specifically authorised officers within the Public Sector Fraud Authority, as set out in clause 66. To exercise the powers, these officials will be required to comply with the relevant training and qualifications, as set out in the relevant codes. They will be subject to both internal and external oversight, including scrutiny of training.

Further safeguards are embedded throughout the legislation for civil penalties. These include the right to make representations in clause 56, the ability to request an internal review in clause 57, and the ability to request an appeal to an appropriate court in clause 60. Additional details of the safeguards will be set out in a code of practice published before the first use of the civil penalty powers. I will give some detail of what will be in that code of practice when we discuss the later clauses. Clause 56 is essential because it holds the PSFA and this Government accountable, ensuring that the safeguards are not only explained to the public but maintained and reviewed by independent oversight.

Clause 57 ensures that a penalty decision notice must be issued before a penalty is imposed, and provides an essential safeguard by giving individuals access to a review and sufficient time for it to be carried out. Powers of review will be available only to authorised officers within the PSFA who are appropriately trained. Penalties are a key part of the deterrent message that this Government wish to send by delivering the Bill. Fraud will not be tolerated, but it is not enough to simply recover money lost to fraud and error. A clear message must be sent that fraudulent actions have consequences.

Clause 58 is essential to ensure that the PSFA enforcement unit acts with transparency and is held accountable for its decisions. It is also an essential safeguard for the individuals and businesses that it will deal with, as it provides a right of review and a chance for decisions to be challenged. As part of the process, the penalised person will have the opportunity to request a review of the penalty and state why it should not be imposed; a person may contest the level of the penalty. During review, a penalty will not be imposed, per clause 57(3). If a person is not satisfied with the result of a review, they will have the opportunity to appeal the outcome to an appropriate court, per clause 60. Reviews will be carried out by an authorised officer of higher grade than the authorising officer who made the original penalty decision, as stated in clause 66(3). This is yet another safeguard that ensures a fair review of the penalty.

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

The clauses outline the steps and safeguards before the Minister may impose a penalty. Getting these provisions right, ensuring that due process is followed, affected individuals and businesses have a right to respond and penalties are not imposed arbitrarily, is crucial.

Clause 56 sets out the procedural rights of a person facing a penalty. It ensures that penalties are not imposed without the affected party first being allowed an opportunity to respond. Subsection (2) requires that a notice of intent be given to any person facing a penalty, inviting them to make representations before a final decision is made. Under subsection (3), the notice of intent must include the amount of the proposed penalty, the reasons for imposing a penalty of that amount, and the means by which representations may be made, as well as the timescale for doing so.

As we are approaching the end of part 1, I know that the Government will be disappointed if I do not have a long list of questions on these provisions for the Minister. A theme from Tuesday’s sessions was the time limit on representations. The Bill states that individuals and businesses must be given a minimum of 28 days to make representations. There is a little more flexibility in the provisions we debated on Tuesday, but do the Government intend to set a maximum limit, whether in the legislation or perhaps the code of practice, on the number of days that would be available for such representations? If not, how will it be ensured that the process does not become excessively prolonged, as the Minister spoke about on Tuesday? As well as causing delay for the public authority seeking to recover funds, it might cause uncertainty for businesses and individuals. We are also interested to hear about guidance that might be issued on when it would be appropriate to vary the 28 days and allow a longer period for representation in order to strike a balance.

On the issue of authorised officers, and assuming that the decisions are being delegated, the Minister has previously referred to the Carltona principle whereby Ministers can delegate decision-making and executive powers to appropriate officials. In the light of the Government’s intention to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, I am interested to know whether they have assessed the impact that might have on the operation of the Carltona principle in these circumstances. The principle is derived from pre-second world war case law, but it was significantly weakened in the Gerry Adams challenge. It was one of the things the previous Government were seeking to change, as a response to amendments in the House of Lords to re-establish the principle. In the absence of the 2023 Act, will the principle still be legally robust enough to allow the delegation that the Government intend under this Bill?

We assume that the decision on whether to maintain, reduce or cancel a proposed penalty will be made by an authorised officer rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, so will the Minister set out the level of seniority of the authorised officers within the PSFA and how that decision was reached? What training will those officers be required to undergo for this specific function, and what steps is the PSFA expected to put in place to ensure consistency in decision making across different cases?

Clause 57 outlines the process for issuing a penalty decision notice once a final decision has been made. Again, the requirements in the clause appear to be sensible and necessary if we are to ensure that individuals and organisations are fully informed of their liability and have an opportunity to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect or unfair, so we support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 58 deals with reviews of penalty decisions. I have a few questions about who in the PSFA or Government will conduct the review. Who will ensure that they are properly separate from the individual decision-making process and if the reviews are to be conducted by officials, what will be the level of seniority required?

The clauses set out important procedural safeguards that seem to be appropriate to ensure penalties are not imposed unfairly. If we are given clarification regarding the degree of discretion available, the seniority, and training in decision making and the safeguards that ensure fairness, we will be content for the clauses to stand part of the Bill.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses. Safeguarding people is an essential part of the Bill. I suspect we will go into that in greater depth as we embark on part 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

We support the provision that a person can appeal against a penalty to the appropriate court. This is an appropriate level of oversight for these civil penalties, and it is appropriate that the court can uphold, revoke or amend the penalty notice and make the final decision on whether an individual should be penalised for fraud. Obviously the Minister’s judgment that the behaviour was fraudulent and caused the loss to the public authority will form a part of that decision. It is clearly right that there is a role for the legal system in the appeal process. It is also sensible to have the decision by the appropriate court marked as the final decision, to prevent ongoing appeals that could frustrate the proper recovery of funds that are properly payable.

The clause also allows the Minister to make further regulation via the negative procedure regarding appeals against a penalty notice. Will she explain why the negative procedure was judged appropriate in these circumstances, rather than one that would allow Parliament automatically to have its say on any proposed regulations? What further provisions does she envisage being introduced at a later date? I understand that part of the purpose of the clause is to accommodate unforeseeable changes in circumstances, so it is not always possible to see the detail, but some clarity on the kind of area or circumstances in which regulations may be needed would help the Committee to form a judgment on the clause. If no further provisions are expected and there is no reason to imagine that they may be necessary, that clearly renders that part redundant.

That is a rather shorter list of questions to this clause—I am drawing to a close. I would appreciate if the Minister could provide that clarification.

[Georgia Gould]

I am pleased to provide that clarification. As I said, the critical point is that this provision is very limited in its scope, and the right to appeal set out in the Bill cannot be removed. In my initial remarks, I gave an example of making the appeal process more efficient, such as by allowing an appeal against a penalty or debt to be heard at the same time. The provision is limited to how appeals are operationalised, and does not affect the right to have an appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Code of practice

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

[Georgia Gould]

The clause is an important part of the Bill because the code of practice will set out how and why civil penalties will be calculated and imposed. This will help to ensure that those powers are used transparently and reasonably. I made a commitment as we went through the previous clauses to go into detail about what will be in the code of practice, which I plan to do now.

The code of practice will set clear guidance and standards for authorised officers when using the powers. It will also help the general public to understand how those powers are exercised. To encourage co-operation with our investigations, allowing the PSFA to recover more from fraudsters in the most efficient way possible, it may be appropriate to offer discounted penalties to those who co-operate.

We will consult on the code of practice and publish it ahead of the first use of the civil penalty powers to ensure sufficient time for Members to familiarise themselves with the measures. In the spirit of being helpful to the Committee, I want to give as much detail as I can on what the code of practice will contain so that the House has the opportunity to understand it, as well as the other place in due course. This will of course be subject to change if either House amends the Bill.

The code of practice will set out the statutory obligation under which it is published, who the intended audience is, and how it should be used. It will set out the rights of anyone who is penalised, which will include appointing legal advisers or other representatives, and how to access legal aid, if entitled to do so. It will set out how the civil penalty system will be overseen by senior officials and set out the roles of the oversight function and the “independent person” under clauses 64 and 65.

The code will explain the scope of the power and how individuals, companies and other organisations will be treated. It will also set out the various kinds of penalties in the Bill, and that penalties may be applied to fraud that occurred before the Bill is enacted. It will cover the training that authorised officers will have undertaken before being authorised to issue civil penalties and the standards used by the Government’s counter-fraud profession.

The code will inform the public about the investigative process in enough detail to give a fair understanding of how cases will be proven to the civil standard, without giving so much information that it would enable a fraudster to game the system. This will include how cases are referred to the PSFA, how authorised officers will be trained to assess individual vulnerability and how that will be assessed during the initial case assessment.

The code will explain how the information powers in the Bill work, how they will be used, the safeguards for their use and how reviews may be requested. It will include how authorised officers will establish a claim, including in court, and how authorised officers will assess whether a case meets the civil burden of proof required to issue a fraud penalty. It will also test that assessment with others, including subject matter experts, specialists and legal advisers. It will explain the decision-making process, including who will make the decision about penalty calculation and imposition.

The code will also set out the circumstances in which the PSFA will not apply a penalty, such as where there has been an error rather than fraud. Importantly, it will also make it clear that civil penalties will not be applied as an alternative to criminal prosecution but as a separate response to fraud.

The code will set out how fraud penalty levels will be calculated. Penalties will be bespoke to the case they relate to, based on the individual facts. Penalties imposed will be reasonable and proportionate, and the code will set out what that means in practice. Penalty levels will be decided by reference to a variety of factors, based on the circumstances of each case. Those include, but are not limited to: the financial loss to the public authority; the time period and frequency of the offence, whether it is a one-off or a sustained fraud; the harm done to a public authority; the impact of the offence; the offender’s behaviour; whether the offender has acted alone or as part of a group; whether a position of trust held by those committing fraud has been abused.

Separately, the code will set out how the penalties in the Bill for non-compliance will work, along with information powers and debt recovery powers, and the safeguards that will be in place. It will set out the criteria by which the PSFA may offer to discount a penalty for fully co-operating and disclosing fraud. It is beneficial to the Government to seek early resolution to investigation and enforcement action, and that kind of discount is used elsewhere to incentivise that. However, the code will also explain that there can be no discount without full co-operation.

The code will set out the practical steps of issuing a penalty in accordance with the clauses in the Bill. That will include the issuing of notices of intent; how a person can access their right to make representations on any relevant matters; how penalty decision notices will be issued; and how to access the rights of internal review and of appeal to the tribunals. On that last point, the code will also help a person to understand what a tribunal is and how to appeal. It will not replicate the existing published guidance on the tribunals, which it will instead signpost people to.

The code will set out when a penalty becomes payable, how to pay it and what will happen if it is not paid. That will include setting out how the debt recovery powers in the Bill will work, if their use is required, and other potential routes of debt recovery action. Finally, the code will make it clear how the PSFA will process, hold and share data, as set out in the Bill and with reference to the Data Protection Act 2018.

The content of the code of practice, as I have set out, will give anyone affected by these powers a clear understanding of what will happen and why, their rights and responsibilities, and how the PSFA will act throughout the process. Having explained that, I commend clause 62 to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. Obviously, it is helpful for us to have what are, essentially, the chapter headings of the code of practice—the areas that it will cover. That clearly provides some degree of transparency, but it is no substitution for the detail of what will actually appear within those chapters.

We heard from a range of witnesses last week who, in response to many of our questions, were unable to say whether the powers and provisions in the Bill are appropriate and proportionate because of the absence of detail about the code of practice. It would be helpful and courteous to this House, therefore, if as much detail as possible about what will appear—the actual provisions for how the code of practice will operate, rather than just the chapter headings—could be made available at an early enough stage for it to be considered during the Bill’s passage through this House.

Can the Minister give more information about the input that will go into deciding what the details are within the code of practice? Which stakeholders does she expect will be engaged with? Are there any parallel equivalent codes of practice in other areas that might be expected to be a model for this code, or are we effectively starting with a blank sheet?

Again, although the Minister’s explanation is extremely welcome, we continue to be disappointed that the actual detail is currently scheduled to be made available only for Members of the House of Lords to consider before legislating, rather than elected Members of Parliament. We appreciate the recognition of the importance of transparency, which we are obviously seeking to maintain throughout the Bill, but we hope that the Government will accelerate their plans to provide more information for Members of Parliament so that informed decisions can be made about this important legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I will start by talking about clauses 64 and 65, and then I will address the amendment.

It is absolutely necessary that there is appropriate independent oversight to ensure the powers in the Bill are used appropriately, and we welcome debate on that. That is why we have introduced the power to appoint an independent person, which might be one person—an independent reviewer—or an organisation such as His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. They will augment the existing oversight structures laid out elsewhere in the Bill, such as the role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, set out in clause 9, which will investigate the most serious complaints into the PSFA’s use of entry, search and seizure powers.

Clause 64 mandates that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers in the Bill. The independent reviewer will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They will produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament. That ensures there is both public and parliamentary accountability in the role of the independent person outlined in the Bill.

As we state in the explanatory notes, we intend to make the duty imposed by the clause in two ways. First, the Government will commission His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to inspect the PSFA’s use of the new investigative powers, which can include the end-to-end investigative process and decision making. HMICFRS has a long-standing history, going back to 1856, and it independently assesses and reports on the performance of police and fire and rescue services in the UK, as well as other public bodies with investigatory powers, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. HMICFRS reports are already made available publicly, and are an efficient way to hold bodies accountable for their investigative practices.

Secondly, the Government are creating a new position for an independent reviewer to whom the PSFA’s oversight team will report. The independent reviewer will assess how the PSFA exercises the powers given to it in the Bill. The independent reviewer will carry out reviews and report on whether the use of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, as well as considering areas where HMICFRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The independent reviewer could, for instance, consider live case reviews or conduct supplementary reviews between those undertaken by other bodies, or look specifically at how the PSFA has taken forward recommendations from past reviews. The independent chair will have discretion in determining where to focus their resources.

We do not believe it is necessary to legislate in the manner proposed by the amendment to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament will scrutinise the independent person’s report, which the Minister is obliged to lay in Parliament. There is also an established process for agreeing posts that should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committees without the need for legislative provision. That process is to reach agreement on posts suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny between my Department and the Chair of the relevant Select Committee. We will be following that process for the appointment of the independent chair. We hope that offers assurance to the hon. Member for Torbay. The appointment of the independent reviewer will also fully comply with the governance code on public appointments which is overseen by the Commissioner of Public Appointments.

[Mike Wood]

Clause 64 sets out that the independent person has responsibilities to prepare and submit a report on the review. We welcome that element of transparency, but are conscious that we need to balance those publications against the privacy of individuals. It is covered within the legislation, but could the Minister further detail the measures that are being taken to ensure that the independent person’s reviews do protect the privacy of individuals involved, especially where there may not have been a legal process in which someone has been found guilty of an offence?

What sort of person is considered an independent person for these purposes? Is the provision intended to create a team of civil servants in the Department who do these reviews, or will it be an individual? What oversight will there be of the independent reviewers, and what resources will they have? Will they have any other responsibilities beyond the report that they produce at the end of the period that the Minister sets out?

Clause 65 allows the Minister to give direction

“as to the period to be covered”

by the review, and provides that the Minister

“may disclose information to the independent person, or to a person acting on behalf of the independent person”.

Even if the Minister is only able to set timeframes for reviews, I would still like clarity as to how independent that person is intended to be from the PSFA, the Cabinet Office and the Minister. We understand why information will need to be shared between the Minister and the independent person if they are to carry out that function, but what protections are in place to maintain privacy and protect against the sharing of unnecessary personal information that goes beyond what the independent person will require?

We have some sympathy for amendment 31, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. There is clearly a need to ensure a proper and open appointment process, as choosing the right person will shape the effectiveness of many of the review mechanisms. It is therefore vital that that decision is right. The involvement of Parliament does seem to be one way of achieving that oversight, in the absence of any better proposal in the legislation. While we recognise that this role may be rather different from the others that are set out in annex D of the Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny, we would be more comfortable knowing that there is going to be that scrutiny rather than relying, at some point after the legislation is passed, on conversations between whoever happens to be in the Cabinet Office at the time or whoever happens to be Chairing whichever Committee the Speaker feels is most appropriate to be conducting any such hearings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

The powers in the Bill are conferred on the Minister, but they will be exercised by officials specifically authorised by the Minister and termed “authorised officers”. The clause is an essential element of the legislation. It sets out the decisions that, if not made by the Minister personally, may be undertaken by an authorised officer only: deciding to give an information notice; deciding to give a recovery notice; deciding to make or vary a direct deduction order; deciding to make or vary a deduction from earnings; deciding to give a notice of intent to impose a civil penalty; and imposing a civil penalty.

Furthermore, the clause details some fundamental safeguards on the use of the powers. First, to be appointed as an authorised officer, the individual must be employed in the civil service within the Cabinet Office. That is to ensure strict control over who may use the powers. The clause also defines who may conduct internal reviews, a protection offered widely in the Bill. Any internal reviews must be undertaken by an authorised officer at least one grade senior to the officer involved in the initial decision, or by the Minister. That ensures that officers cannot review their own decisions when challenged for an internal review.

Authorised officers form the backbone of the Government’s approach to taking the powers. The officers will need to complete a rigorous bespoke training programme, which will cover all aspects of investigative practice, including the relevant powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for authorised investigators. That will be to the same standard as for other public bodies using the same powers. Only after the training conditions have been met will an individual be put forward to the Minister for authorisation to act as an authorised officer and then may use the powers. Their use of the powers must follow strict processes, guidance and codes of practice. They will be subject to internal and external independent oversight of their use of the powers.

The clause is essential, as it provides a statutory gateway for PSFA officials to use the powers under the Bill. Without the clause, the Government’s intention to improve counter-fraud enforcement would either be impractical, or the powers would be given to more individuals than is absolutely required. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

As the Minister says, the clause sets out those decisions that can be taken by an individual authorised by the Minister on their behalf. It specifies that the authorised officer must be a civil servant in her Department. Where there is a review, it must be taken by an authorised officer of a higher grade than the one who took the original decision. As we said when debating earlier clauses, the level of the original officer seems to be set at a rather lower level than in the equivalent decision-making processes in the police and other similar organisations. The measures set out in the clause appear to be sensible, but we have one or two questions about their practical aspects.

In particular, how many of the decisions referred to in the clause does the Minister expect an officer to be likely to make on a weekly basis? When we were debating civil penalty notices, the Minister suggested that it might only be a few a year. This clause covers a rather wider range of notices, so some idea of the workload to be expected of authorised officers will help us to form a better picture of the detail of what we expect authorised officers to be considering. Similarly, does the Minister have any expectation at this stage of how many authorised officers across the different grades will be fulfilling these functions?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Critically, we have been clear that the team will be small. However, as I have said, if the practical use of these powers goes well—we expect it to, because they are widely used in government—there is the opportunity to grow the team. Importantly, these will be highly trained officers who are specialists in this work. They will have that breadth of experience. In the first instance, we expect around 40 cases a year, but as I said, that is subject to change as time goes on.

The team will be higher executive officers or above in the PSFA. Authorised investigators must also be higher executive officers or above. That means that they will receive further training on PACE powers. Where PACE stipulates that a decision must be made by an officer with a rank of inspector or above, schedule 1 states that it will be taken by an authorised investigator of senior executive officer grade or above. That is proportionate. These are highly trained officers. We specifically ask that the powers not be given out widely, but to a group of people who will have a huge amount of training and oversight to be able to exercise them proportionately, and in a way that recovers fraud but also safeguards those being investigated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Disclosure of information etc: interaction with external constraints

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

The clause is essential in protecting specific information, preventing potential harm to individuals and upholding ethical standards in situations where unauthorised sharing could cause damage. The clause ensures that the powers adhere to current data protection legislation by safeguarding data from misuse, damage and unauthorised access. It also ensures that a person’s legal professional privilege rights are protected. The clause safeguards an individual’s rights and prevents them from being forced to provide information that could incriminate them.

Amendment 3 is necessary to clarify that this power applies to all processing of information, and to provide consistency with clauses 67(1) and (2). It would replace “disclosure, obtaining or use” of information with “processing”. It would create no additional effect and ensures clear comprehension that clause 67(3) applies in relation to all processing of information.

[Mike Wood]

The clause sets out how the provisions relate to data protection legislation. It is clearly an important provision to reinforce the data protection framework, given the number of concerns raised, particularly by Opposition Members, about the protections for individual privacy. The clause sets out some protection, albeit at a baseline of the existing legal provisions, to prevent breaches of any obligation of confidence owed by the people making disclosure, or of other restrictions including legal privilege. It seems eminently sensible, but will the Minister detail further the oversight mechanisms that will ensure that the safeguards are followed? What processes and avenues are available if someone believes that the requirements set out in the clause have not been followed? How should that be pursued?

As the Minister said, Government amendment 3 is a technical amendment. We have no objection to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Clause 68 sets out how the powers in part 1 of the Bill variously apply or do not apply to the Crown, to Parliament and to the King and his estates, and in circumstances of grounds of national security. The clause sets important boundaries on the scope of part 1. As such, it is essential that it stands part of the Bill.

The clause ensures that the Crown is bound by specific powers and provisions in the Bill. It applies in relation to premises used or held on behalf of the Crown —for example, a building owned by a Government Department—in the same way as any other premises. For instance, an authorised investigator could, if necessary, apply to a court for a warrant to enter, search and seize evidence from Crown premises. However, it does not bind the Crown in respect of some powers, specifically those in clauses 16 to 37, relating to recovery orders and recovery from bank accounts, and chapter 5, relating to civil penalties. If it did, the effect would be the Crown recovering money from itself or imposing a penalty on itself that it would pay to itself, simply moving money within its own accounts.

Subsection (4) creates a power for the Minister to certify that it appears appropriate in the interests of national security that the powers of entry conferred by this part should not be exercised on Crown premises specified in the certificate. Authorised investigators could not seek a warrant to enter those premises to search for evidence. This carve-out exists because there are certain Crown premises where searching may compromise national security. It is important that this is respected. In that event, the PSFA would discuss with the relevant Department or agency what alternative approach may be possible.

Finally, the clause states that the power of entry conferred by this part cannot be exercised on His Majesty’s private estates or premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament. The King’s private estates are those held by His Majesty as a private person. This does not mean the Crown Estate—the sovereign’s public estates, which are managed by the Crown Estate commissioners on behalf of the Crown. In the incredibly unlikely event that evidence suggested that it was necessary to search the King’s private estates or either House of Parliament, the PSFA would request to be invited by the appropriate authority, which would be the Speaker or the Lord Speaker in the case of this House and the other place, respecting the privileges of Parliament.

Clause 70 is the interpretation clause, which sets out the meaning of terms used in part 1. I do not propose to run through the whole list of terms. Many of them are straightforward and refer back to previous clauses we have debated, but some are important to understand the scope of this part or are used in a novel way. I will say a few words about them so that the Committee can understand them in the correct context.

The first term is “authorised officer”, which we covered in clause 66. In this part, authorised officer has the meaning given in clause 66, which as we have already seen says that they must be employed in the civil service in the Minister’s Department. This means that other types of public sector workers, such as consultants or contractors, cannot be authorised officers, which is a safeguard on the use of the powers.

The clause defines “fraud” as including

“the offences in sections 1 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006…and…the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.”

The Committee will recall that we discussed this in the debate on clauses 1 and 2, and I can repeat the assurances that I gave then. The definition sets the scope of fraud in relation to the core functions of a Minister in clause 1, and it covers the three main fraud offences: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position. It also covers the common-law offence of conspiracy, which requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. Together, these give the scope needed to tackle the key forms of public sector fraud.

The clause defines “public authority” as

“a person with functions of a public nature so far as acting in the exercise of those functions”.

This sets out the scope of the Departments, bodies and agencies that the PSFA would be able to work with and on behalf of. The definition is deliberately wide to enable the PSFA to tackle public sector fraud wherever it may arise. It will allow the use of powers to investigate fraud against all central Government Departments and agencies—except HMRC and the DWP, because they already have existing powers—as well as local government and any arm’s length delivery mechanisms that deliver functions of a public nature.

The clause defines “suspected fraud” as

“conduct which the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect may constitute fraud”.

We discussed this definition in the debate on clause 3. Reasonable grounds to suspect is an objective test meaning a belief based on specific evidence that a reasonable person would hold. It is not just based on the investigator’s own subjective opinion. It is a reasonable test that asks, “Would an ordinary, reasonable person”—like you or me, Sir Desmond—“being in possession of the same facts as the investigator, agree that it was reasonable to suspect that fraud had occurred?” This is a common standard to initiate an investigation.

Finally, beyond the definitions, the clause clarifies references to

“giving a notice or other document”

and sets out how court proceedings are considered to be finally determined. The clause is essential to ensure the correct understanding and interpretation of key terms used throughout part 1 of the Bill.

Clause 71 states that all regulations under this part should be made using statutory instruments. This ensures a structured approach to the regulatory framework. The clause allows for the creation of different types of provisions, such as consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving measures. This flexibility helps to adapt regulations to various circumstances.

The affirmative procedure requires that the regulations be approved by both Houses of Parliament, which ensures that there is oversight and accountability. The negative procedure allows regulations to be implemented promptly, but they can still be annulled by either House of Parliament if necessary. The option to convert regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure ensures flexibility in response to the significance of particular regulatory provisions.

Clause 71 is essential for establishing a coherent and responsive regulatory framework in the legislation. By mandating the use of statutory instruments, it promotes a structured process that enhances accountability and keeps the regulatory system transparent.

[Mike Wood]

We fully support the measures in clause 68 on Crown premises and the Houses of Parliament—they seem perfectly sensible. As the Minister said, clause 70 specifies a whole string of definitions. Given the time, Members may be relieved to know that I do not have a specific response for each of them; there is very little in the definitions to quibble with.

Clause 71 sets out the regulations under this part. The Minister drew attention to subsection (5), which allows for the regulations specified in the Bill to be subject to either the negative or affirmative procedure. As we said earlier in Committee, many of the cases that have been outlined will be require regulations that have potentially far-reaching consequences, both for individuals and organisations. Such consequences would strongly justify the active participation of Parliament, rather than simply relying on the negative resolution, which lacks any guarantee of a debate on an attempt to pray against.

Regulations can be very difficult for Parliament to object to. We encourage the use of the affirmative procedure and hope the Government will detail their intentions on when it will be used for provisions that would otherwise be subject to the negative procedure. Beyond that, we have no objections to the clauses.

[Georgia Gould]

When I previously went through the different regulatory areas, I also went through which would be subject to the negative and affirmative procedures. I absolutely hear the point; the critical point for me is that the key provisions sit in the Bill. We do not expect changes made by regulation to change the key areas of oversight and the safeguards but, as the shadow Minister says, the provision for changes is there if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

The Public Sector Fraud Authority

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

--- Later in debate ---

As I have noted, the Government intend to keep the establishment of the PSFA as a statutory body under review. In particular, as efforts to recover public money lost to fraud expand, it may become appropriate to commence the schedule, which provides the framework should such a course of action be decided on—although, as we discussed previously, there is a great deal of oversight in the existing operation of the powers. I commend clause 69 and schedule 2 to the Committee.

[Mike Wood]

The clause contains provisions on setting up the Public Sector Fraud Authority on a statutory basis. As I said at the beginning of Committee stage, we support the Government’s work to strengthen the PSFA’s role. The form in which it has been operating since it was established under the previous Government offers an opportunity to see how its functions can be exercised more effectively to recover a greater amount of public money that has been lost either to fraud or to error.

Although we have a range of concerns, which we have discussed, about the exercise of some of the functions and, in particular, about the oversight of some of them, we think the decision to have a Public Sector Fraud Authority is the right one, and agree that there may be future circumstances in which those functions could be performed more effectively were the authority placed on a statutory basis, so we do not oppose schedule 2.

As we have reached the end of part 1 of the Bill, and so probably the end my exchanges with the Minister, I thank her for the answers she has given. We will seek to follow up on some of those answers during the passage of the Bill, but for now we are happy for clause 69 and schedule 2 to be part of the Bill.

[Siân Berry]

In general, I very much support the move to make the PSFA an independent body, and the constitution in schedule 2 seems like a good start. However, looking through it I cannot see anywhere how the people appointed as the chair and executive of the PSFA will be subject to a code of conduct; to rules on transparency and registering interests; to requirements relating to compliance with the Nolan principles; and to the oversight of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments relating to subsequent work after they leave the PSFA. The Minister, who is currently named in the Bill, is subject to all those requirements.

There is clear potential for conflicts of interests in the various roles, so it is important that they are put under that regime. Will the Minister be clear about how that will come about and whether that could be added to the constitution if it is not already there?

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

It is incredibly important to reiterate for anybody who may be watching our proceedings that the Government will not be going through anybody’s bank accounts. We will be asking banks and financial institutions to do that, and to share information with us only where there is a potential breach of eligibility verification. The information that is shared with us will be specifically related to identifying the bank account and the potential breach of eligibility. It will not be, for instance, special category data or transactional data.

To return to my point about the use of AI and automated decision making, when a flag comes back on the eligibility verification measure, a potential breach of eligibility will immediately be passed to a human investigator to take that forward. It will not at any point trigger a penalty or a prosecution for fraud without a human intervening and, as they do at present, establishing that there is potentially fraudulent activity or, indeed, an error that warrants a reclamation of overpayment.

Amendment 30 seeks to stop the DWP from being able to use the eligibility verification power in respect of pension credit. We have had quite the debate about that already, and the hon. Member for South West Devon made many of the points that I would have made.

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

According to the House of Commons Library, one of the biggest factors in that 10% of pension credit expenditure that is lost to fraud and error is payments to people who are abroad. How will the measures on eligibility verification help to identify people who do not actually live in the country so would not be eligible for pension credit?

[Andrew Western]

I am grateful beyond belief to the hon. Gentleman, because he highlights why this provision is so important. More than 50% of the fraud and error that we see in pension credit comes from two principle sources, which the eligibility verification measure specifically seeks to address. One is the issue of capital fraud, where there is a relatively easy indicator—for example, in respect of universal credit, was the individual in receipt of capital in their account of more than £16,000?

The provision also has the benefit of helping us to establish when somebody has been out of the country for longer than their benefit entitles them to be. For instance, it would provide a flag on an account when somebody’s bank account suggested they had been making purchases abroad and so on. We would not receive the transactional data or know specifically where the purchases were made—or, indeed, whether it was cheesecake or some other item—but it would give us specifically the date that somebody left the country, and thereby show whether they were in breach of the length of time they are allowed to be away. This is not, then, just a tool to deal with capital fraud, although that is the most straightforward example to articulate and, therefore, the one I use most readily; it will also be useful to identify people who have been abroad for longer than their eligibility suggests they should be allowed to be while continuing to receive benefits.

It is important to recognise—I touched on this when I set out the human safeguard that is in place—that a flag would not necessarily mean that someone has done anything wrong, or that they are no longer entitled to benefits. On capital fraud, it might be because someone has received, perfectly legitimately, a Government compensation payment, such as for infected blood, which would be out of scope. That is why a human would check that. The person would therefore not lose benefits or receive an overpayment.

On someone being out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be—if they have been taken ill, or if there has been an environmental catastrophe, humanitarian disaster or some such, that means they are unable to leave the country they are in—again, that would be investigated. The person would not face action as a result. I hope I have set out exactly how the eligibility verification measure is useful not only for capital fraud, but for allowing us to notice and receive indications about when someone has been out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be while still receiving benefits.

As I said, on amendment 30, the hon. Member for South West Devon touched on many of the comments that I would have made about why pension credit is included. The change would not explicitly exclude pension credit, as with the state pension, because the legislation still enables Ministers to lay regulations for its inclusion at a future date. My intention, however, is to use the power for pension credit payments from the outset, because unfortunately the rising trend in overpayments of pension credits demonstrates that pension-age benefits are not immune from fraud and error.

In 2023-24, £520 million in pension credit was overpaid, and pension credit has one of the highest rates of capital fraud and error, with £198 million lost in 2023-24 alone. The rate of fraud in pension credit increased by more than 50% in 2023-24, as against the previous year, so we have a clear problem. The under-declaration of financial assets and claimants staying abroad for a longer period than is allowed remain the two main causes of pension credit overpayments in ’23-24. As I said previously, they accounted for more than 50% of all overpayments.

Equally, it is important to ensure that people receive the right payments. The eligibility verification measure is not about removing pension credit payments from anyone; it is about confirming that claimants meet the conditions of entitlement. The measure also enables the Department to help to prevent individuals from unknowingly accruing overpayments, pension credits or any other benefit in scope, which could lead to financial stress if later they need to repay money they were not entitled to.

Overall, the measure and the inclusion of pension credit will help the DWP to ensure that public funds are used responsibly while maintaining confidence in the benefit system. On that basis, I will resist amendment 30.

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Western]

Amendments 48 and 22 seek to limit the amount that can be deducted via a direct deduction order in any month to 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period in non-fraud cases, and to set no limit in cases where the Department considers it more likely than not that the debt is the result of fraud.

The hon. Member for South West Devon will know I have sympathy with the idea of quickly collecting debts that arise due to fraud, but the measures in the Bill already allow the Department to collect higher amounts through a lump sum deduction order, rather than through a regular deduction order. This important flexibility in the application of these powers will allow us to seek a higher level of deductions. A lump sum deduction order can also be followed with a regular deduction order, if deemed appropriate.

The Bill currently states that, where recovery is made under a regular deduction order, the deduction must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers, such as the direct earnings attachment power and the Child Maintenance Service’s deduction from earnings order power.

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

Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood, as the drafting obviously relates to the parallel provisions we debated in clause 22. My understanding is that, as currently drafted, if the Minister or the Public Sector Fraud Authority is satisfied that a loss is the result of fraud, they can impose a lump sum deduction up to 100% of the credited amount in an account. However, if they were to use a regular deduction order, each sum can be only 40%. Is there any reason, in principle or for welfare, why it is okay to take 100% of someone’s account on day one but not okay to take 50% today and 50% the following month?

[Andrew Western]

Put simply, my understanding is that if an individual debtor has sufficient money in their account to pay 100% on day one without financial hardship, we will apply that power. Where that is not possible—for example, if a person’s debt exceeds their means to repay it in one go—we will look at a regular deduction order. It is on that basis that we came to the 40% figure, which is based on the income going into an account each month.

We have set the cap to ensure that ongoing living costs can still be met on a month-by-month basis. It may not be that the figure used is 40%. We are simply seeking to give ourselves flexibility up to that amount. We are not saying that we will never recover more than that. If someone has £10 million in a bank account and owes the Department £1 million, it is reasonable to assume it will not cause them undue hardship to recover all of it in one go through a lump sum deduction.

The two powers are complementary but separate—one deals with ongoing recovery from a person who does not have sufficient means for recovery in one go, and the other deals with people who have savings or means significant enough to do just that. I hope that answers the question. I am happy to take another intervention if not.

The Bill currently states that when a recovery is made under a regular deduction order, deductions must not exceed 40% of the amount credited into the account during the relevant period—month by month is the obvious example. Forty per cent is the maximum and is in line with other maximum rates for the DWP’s existing recovery powers. The Department intends to set lower rates for regular deductions in non-fraud cases, allowing those rates to remain in line with existing recovery powers. Paragraph 24 of proposed new schedule 3ZA to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 therefore makes provision for regulations to be brought forward to set a maximum percentage deduction that is less than 40% in these cases.

[Mike Wood]

It sounds as though the Minister is speaking to amendment 22, which would restrict his power to set a lower amount to non-fraud cases. If we agree that lower limits should apply only in cases that do not involve fraud, can we just accept the amendment?

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

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for South West Devon in tabling the new clause—that is, to take fraud against the public sector seriously—but the Government plan to resist it, because we believe that the proposals are already covered and that it could lead to unintended consequences that do the opposite of what she wants.

As the hon. Member said, new clause 2 would create a new offence of fraud against a public authority. We believe that that could have a detrimental effect and is unnecessary, because fraud is already an offence, and this is clearly defined in clause 70 as offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. The Bill uses those offences—they do not need to be written into it to have effect—and we have given assurances on that during a previous debate.

Consequently, there does not need to be a specific fraud offence for public authorities. Assisting and encouraging fraud against a public authority, as is mentioned in the new clause, is already an offence. The offences of “encouraging or assisting”, as set out in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, apply to fraud offences as they do to other crimes. Again, that does not need to be written into the Bill to have effect.

The Public Sector Fraud Authority will be able to investigate cases in which it appears that someone has encouraged someone else to commit fraud. If we discover encouragement, that would likely form part of the PSFA’s investigation into a fraud case, and the Crown Prosecution Service could pursue that offence using the evidence collected. Whether action can be taken will depend on the facts of the case, the evidence available and whether the necessary standard of proof can be met.

Crucially, new clause 2 would reduce the maximum sentence available for Fraud Act and conspiracy offences from 10 years to seven years, for fraud against public authorities only.

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

I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?

[Georgia Gould]

As I set out, these measures are already covered, and the proposals would potentially reduce sentences from 10 years to seven years. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want those who defraud the public sector to get lower sentences than those who would defraud the private sector.

[Mike Wood]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.