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

• Bill Introduction and Committee Schedule: The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill had its first sitting. The Committee agreed on a schedule to meet multiple times over several weeks in February and March to discuss and hear evidence on the Bill.

• Witness Schedule and Topics: The Committee planned to hear from various witnesses including experts in fraud from universities and organizations like Cifas, the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, and the Money and Pensions Service, to discuss public sector fraud, error, and recovery.

• Committee Members’ Interests: Some Committee members declared their interests related to the Bill, particularly those involved in councils that administer benefits or charities aiding older people.

• Main Challenges in Investigating Public Sector Fraud: Witnesses highlighted that public sector bodies are obligated to deal with claimants, making it challenging to prevent fraud. They also discussed the need for trained staff to differentiate between fraud and error and the impact of organized crime.

• Proposed Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA): The establishment of the PSFA was viewed positively by the experts, though concerns were raised about its resource limitations and the need for clearer definitions and criteria distinguishing fraud from error in the legislation.

• Potential Gaps in Legislation: Experts suggested the Bill could better clarify how fraud by organizations versus individuals is treated, and the need for more robust oversight to prevent abuse of power.

• Technological and Societal Impacts on Fraud: The increase in online fraud and changing societal attitudes towards it were discussed, with suggestions for education and awareness programs to curb such behaviors.

• International Comparisons: Witnesses mentioned that while the Bill aligns with international efforts to combat fraud, the UK’s approach could benefit from more resources and flexibility.

• DWP Powers and Oversight: Discussions included the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) new powers for eligibility verification and the importance of oversight to ensure proportionality and protection of privacy.

• Debt Recovery and Support: The Money and Pensions Service emphasized the need for fair treatment of debtors, including access to debt advice and supportive repayment plans, ensuring the new powers are used as a last resort.

• Future-proofing Against Fraud in Crises: Witnesses reflected on lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, stressing the importance of having robust plans to prevent fraud during emergencies.

• Code of Practice: The importance of a detailed code of practice for implementing the new powers was repeatedly mentioned, with suggestions for extensive consultation with debt advice organizations and consumer groups.

The session of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill shows some disagreement but overall, it is characterized by a cooperative and inquiry-focused approach. The disagreements largely revolve around specific details and potential enhancements to the Bill rather than fundamental opposition to its objectives. The main areas of disagreement identified are as follows:

1. Definition and Criteria for Fraud: There is notable disagreement among the witnesses on the definition and criteria for differentiating between fraud and error. Dr. Rasha Kassem argues for clarity in the Bill, emphasizing the need for agreed-upon criteria to differentiate between fraud and error, and suggests the Bill should address whether recovery procedures for fraud by individuals versus organizations should differ. Meanwhile, Professor Michael Levi believes some of these specifics do not need to be included in the Bill but should be part of the guidance. This difference in opinion reflects a nuanced disagreement on how prescriptive the legislation should be versus relying on operational guidance.

   • Example: Dr. Kassem stated, ‘Again, 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.’ Professor Levi, in contrast, said, ‘I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill. Definitions of what we mean by “organised” are typically vague.’

2. Oversight and Independence: There is a mild disagreement regarding the level and nature of oversight and independence required for the new powers, especially related to the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Dr. Kassem stressed the importance of an independent oversight board rather than an individual to ensure sustained and unbiased oversight. On the other hand, Georgia Gould highlighted the proposal for an independent chair as a measure to address concerns about oversight.

   • Example: Dr. Kassem argued for a board, saying, ‘Personally, I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual?’ In response, Georgia Gould noted, ‘The proposal is to have an independent chair that is completely independent of the PSFA and reports into Parliament. Do you think that answers that point?’

3. Proportionality and Effectiveness of Powers: Helena Wood expressed concerns about the proportionality and potential overreach of certain powers, particularly the DWP’s eligibility verification powers. She acknowledged their necessity but raised questions about their scope and application, suggesting a need for more stringent controls to be enshrined in the legislation rather than in codes of practice. This signifies a disagreement on how the balance between effectiveness and proportionality should be struck within the Bill.

   • Example: Helena Wood commented, ‘I have concerns around those powers…I would like to see something pulled up on to the face of the Bill to build in proportionality by design.’

Despite these points of contention, the session remained largely procedural and focused on gathering input and refining the approach to the Bill rather than outright opposition. The disagreements are more about fine-tuning the legislation than challenging its foundational elements. Therefore, a rating of 2 reflects a moderate level of disagreement, mainly on technical aspects that could be resolved through further discussion and adjustments to the Bill and accompanying guidance.