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.