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

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

In the same vein, I am a member of Plymouth city council.

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

I am a trustee/director of Southwark Charities, which provides accommodation for some older people who may be affected by the provisions of the Bill—a cursory reference, really.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Mark Button, Dr Rasha Kassem and Professor Michael Levi gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Neil Coyle]

Q To be clear, for example, if someone who has received child benefit fails to notify a change of circumstances when their child reaches 18, there is no suggestion that that would be considered fraud in this legislation?

Dr Kassem: It depends on whether they have knowingly done that, because the differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent.

[Neil Coyle]

Q I think they know the date of birth of their child, but so does the Department for Work and Pensions. The distinction is whether that is an error relating to updating their record with the Department, or a deliberate act of fraud so that they can continue to receive a payment that they are not entitled to. My question is: are you saying that needs to be clearer in the legislation—or guidance, potentially, if we listen to Professor Levi?

Dr Kassem: Yes, in terms of the intent, because errors could happen. The differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent to deceive. The example you mentioned could be error or fraud, depending on the intent to deceive. There must be clear criteria in the Bill to at least guide staff in the public sector to differentiate between fraud and error.

[Neil Coyle]

Q But sticking with that example, it is also an error on the Department’s part to continue making a payment when someone has reached an age where they are not entitled to receive it.

Dr Kassem: It could be, yes.

Professor Levi: I agree.

[Neil Coyle]

So does that distinction need to be in there—that there needs to be the flexibility to treat this on an individual basis?

Professor Button: I was just going to say that my son recently reached 18 and went to university, and my wife received a letter saying something like, “Unless you have these circumstances, you have to positively say that they are staying on in further education.”, so there would be a clear misrepresentation there, I think. There would not be any opportunity for an error in that particular example, based on my experience with my son.

[Neil Coyle]

But what if the 18-year-old went into work? The point is that the onus is on the individual to make clear the change in circumstances to the Department, but the Department also has the opportunity to question. In your case, you are showing that the Department has done that.

Professor Button: They sent a letter, and you had to fill in a form to say that your son was staying on in further education in order to continue receiving payments.

Professor Levi: Yes, to reduce the fudge. It is sometimes difficult to see how there can be a legitimate explanation in the case that you are rightly using, but there must be a possibility of arguing. I am not sure myself that that needs to be in the Bill—that is a matter of criminal law, which the Bill does not seek to change in this case—but, in most departmental behaviour, they will adjust. Mark’s son’s case is a perfect example; the Department has clarified so that, if the family had continued claiming under those circumstances, it would be clear that they had committed an offence.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Good luck to Mark’s son at university. I have one more question regarding Professor Levi’s point about previous experience and organisations being closed down because of appeals and things. Is there a need for this Bill to retain the flexibility in the potential to give bodies new powers over time when challenges arise in either recouping stolen money or challenging potentially fraudulent behaviour?

Professor Levi: I am enthusiastic about the extension of the 12-year limitations; I think that is very sensible, particularly in view of the length of time that has elapsed since covid-19. But I am not sure how you would insert something in the Bill that would enable it to be varied. Presumably Parliament would like to see those proposals before they are approved, but there is an issue about parliamentary time—or it could be done through supplemental issues.

But I think it is right. Very few people can envisage the future. Look at the impact of technologies in our time. People will find ways of getting around things that you have not thought of yet, so that is pretty normal.

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

Q Thank you very much for joining us today. I want to ask Dr Kassem a question, just for my own understanding. We have talked a lot about the definition of fraud and error and the Department’s approach to them. On the DWP side, to my knowledge, we are not planning to change the definitions of those within the scope of the Bill, but, clearly, we are taking new powers to enforce against them. Just out of interest, is there an academically accepted definition of fraud versus error that people work to, or is it ultimately a question of judgment?

Dr Kassem: There are lots of definitions talking about fraud, including lies, cheating and misrepresentation for personal gain, but my point is that personal gain can be financial or non-financial. The Bill specifically mentions financial gain, but what would you do if you had a staff member working for a public authority who, for example, allowed unauthorised access or shared information out of revenge? There is no financial gain in that case. Would you treat that as fraud?