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

• The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill was discussed during a parliamentary session. It aims to address fraud against public sectors, recover lost funds due to fraud or error, and enhance public trust in government spending.

• Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill establish the core functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which include investigating public sector fraud, recovering lost funds, and taking enforcement actions against fraudsters.

• Clause 3 empowers the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA) to compel third parties to provide information related to fraud. It sets a minimum of 10 working days for compliance, with flexibility to extend based on the case’s specifics.

• Discussions focused on ensuring that the powers granted to the PSFA are used reasonably and proportionately, with concerns raised about definitions of “fraud” and “error” and the need for clear guidelines to avoid misuse of power.

• Amendments proposed to enhance safeguards and oversight were debated, including the role of the First Tier Tribunal in reviewing decisions, and adjustments to the timeframe for responding to information requests.

• The need for independent oversight was emphasized, with the government outlining measures such as an independent chair and inspections by HMICFRS (His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services).

• The session also highlighted the balance between effective fraud recovery and protecting individuals and organizations from overly burdensome demands, with a system of appeals and reviews to ensure fairness and proportionality.

• The government reassured that the powers are akin to those already used by other agencies like HMRC and are designed to fill investigative gaps in the wider public sector.

The session on the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill showed a moderate level of disagreement, characterized by probing amendments and critical questioning, but also included elements of cross-party support and a willingness to work together to improve the legislation. Here are the key points of disagreement and agreement observed during the session:

1. Disagreement on Definitions and Oversight: There is a notable level of disagreement concerning the definitions of ‘fraud’ and ‘error’ in the bill. Mike Wood (Conservative) questioned why the definitions were not more clearly aligned with the Fraud Act 2006 and raised concerns about the lack of specific definitions, citing Dr Kassem’s testimony from an earlier session. This indicates a worry over the Bill’s clarity and potential impact on enforcement. Similarly, there is contention over the oversight mechanisms proposed in the Bill, particularly the internal review process and the powers of the Minister, which Wood argued was akin to the Minister ‘marking their own homework’ and lacked independent appeal mechanisms.

2. Disagreement on Timeframes: Amendments proposing changes to the timeframe for responding to information notices were tabled, suggesting disagreement on the practicality of the 10-day minimum set in the Bill. Mike Wood and Steve Darling (Liberal Democrats) argued for 28 days, reflecting concerns over the reasonableness of the time given to individuals and smaller organizations to comply.

3. Agreement and Supportive Comments: Despite disagreements, there was a degree of cross-party support for the overarching goals of the Bill to tackle fraud and error in the public sector. Both Mike Wood and Steve Darling expressed a general agreement with the Bill’s principles and the need to recover misused public funds. Georgia Gould, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, acknowledged the constructive feedback and the common goal to combat fraud.

4. Probing Amendments: Many amendments tabled by the Opposition were labeled as probing, indicating an intent to clarify and improve the Bill rather than to outright oppose its contents. This suggests an effort to refine the legislative text collaboratively, which is a sign of a less adversarial environment.

5. Reassurance and Commitment to Work Together: The Minister, Georgia Gould, gave reassurances on several occasions about the Bill’s intention to be reasonable and proportionate, and emphasized the oversight mechanisms like the independent chair and HMICFRS. This communication shows a commitment to responding to concerns and working collaboratively with the Opposition.

In summary, the session showed disagreements primarily on technical and procedural aspects like definitions, oversight mechanisms, and timeframes, but there was also a clear intent to cooperate and refine the Bill. This balance leads to a rating of 3 for disagreement, reflecting moderate contention but with a foundation of overall support for the legislative goals.