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

• Procedural Rights and Safeguards: Clause 56 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill outlines procedural rights for those facing penalties. Individuals have the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, ensuring due process.

• Penalty Notices and Reviews: Clauses 57 and 58 ensure that before a penalty is enforced, a penalty decision notice is issued, and individuals have the right to an internal review and appeal. Reviews will be conducted by a higher-grade officer than the one who made the initial decision.

• Duration for Representations: There is a concern about the time limit for making representations. The Bill stipulates a minimum of 28 days but does not set a maximum. There is a suggestion for a maximum time limit to prevent undue delays.

• Role of Authorised Officers: The Bill allows the Minister to delegate powers to authorised officers, who must be highly trained civil servants within the Cabinet Office. The delegation is based on the Carltona principle, which enables such delegation.

• Appeals Process: Clause 60 provides the right to appeal to an independent court or tribunal if unsatisfied with the outcome of an internal review. The Minister can make regulations to streamline the appeals process, using the negative procedure.

• Code of Practice: Clause 62 mandates a code of practice for the imposition of civil penalties, which will be set out in detail and consulted upon before its implementation. The code aims to ensure transparency and fairness in penalty assessments.

• Independent Review Mechanism: Clauses 64 and 65 establish an independent reviewer role to oversee the use of powers under the Bill. The Government rejected an amendment to involve parliamentary committees in the reviewer’s appointment, preferring established pre-appointment scrutiny processes.

• Data Protection and Privacy: Clause 67 reinforces data protection measures, ensuring information handling complies with current laws. Concerns were raised about protection of individuals’ privacy during reviews.

• Application to Crown and Parliament: Clause 68 outlines the Bill’s application to Crown premises, excluding the Crown from certain recovery and penalty powers against itself. The Bill also respects the privileges of Parliament and the King’s private estates.

• Public Sector Fraud Authority: Clause 69 allows for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to potentially become a statutory body in the future, pending a review of its effectiveness. Schedule 2 details the potential constitution and operations of such a body.

• Regulatory Framework: Clause 71 specifies that regulations under the Bill will be made by statutory instruments, with flexibility to use either the affirmative or negative procedure, to adapt to varying circumstances.

• Oversight and Accountability: The Bill includes measures for parliamentary oversight and public accountability, such as the right to appeal to courts and the mandatory publication of reports from the independent reviewer.

The level of disagreement in the session is assessed as moderate, warranting a rating of 2 on a scale of 1 to 5. The session displayed a general consensus on the necessity and broad objectives of the legislation, with members across parties generally supportive of creating frameworks to address fraud and error in public authorities. Disagreement was evident, however, in the specifics of the implementation and oversight mechanisms proposed in the bill, though these were expressed more as points of inquiry rather than outright opposition.

Examples of disagreement include:

1. Time Limits for Representations: Mike Wood raised concerns about the time limit set for representations in Clause 56, questioning whether the government would impose a maximum limit or allow for exceptions to the 28-day rule. This indicates a disagreement on the flexibility of procedural rights.

2. Carltona Principle: Mike Wood questioned the legal robustness of the Carltona principle, given potential changes due to the repeal of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. This shows a disagreement or at least concern over the legal foundations supporting the delegation of powers to authorized officers.

3. Negative vs. Affirmative Procedure: There was a discussion on the use of the negative procedure for regulations, with Mike Wood expressing preference for the affirmative procedure to ensure more parliamentary scrutiny. This reflects a disagreement on the level of parliamentary oversight desired for the bill’s regulations.

4. Code of Practice: Siân Berry and Steve Darling expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of detail available in the code of practice at the time of the session, emphasizing the need for scrutiny of the operational details. This points to a disagreement on the transparency and readiness of the bill’s components.

5. Appointment of the Independent Person: Steve Darling proposed an amendment to ensure parliamentary oversight in appointing the independent reviewer, which was rejected. This indicates a disagreement on the level of independence and oversight for key roles within the proposed framework.

6. Specific Concerns about Provisions: The detailed questioning by Mike Wood on various clauses, such as the privacy protections for individuals under Clause 64 and the number of decisions officers might make under Clause 66, highlighted areas of disagreement or uncertainty about specific applications of the bill.

Overall, while the session showed agreement on the overarching goal of the bill, the disagreements centered more on procedural and operational details, indicating moderate contention which merits a rating of 2.