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

• Code of Practice for Debt Recovery: The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill’s Clause 92 was discussed, which requires the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to establish a code of practice for its new debt recovery measures. This code aims to ensure transparency and fairness in how debts are recovered, covering aspects like direct deductions, driving disqualifications, penalties for banks, and protecting vulnerable individuals.

• Public Consultation: The DWP plans to conduct a public consultation on a draft of the code of practice before finalizing it. The consultation aims to involve a broad range of stakeholders to review and provide feedback on the proposed measures. The final code will be presented to both Houses of Parliament for review.

• Debt Recovery Officials: Clause 93 of the Bill gives DWP officials the right to conduct litigation without needing to hire external solicitors, aiming to recover public funds more efficiently. The officials involved will be at least at the higher executive officer level and will undergo specialized training.

• Cost Recovery: Clauses 94 and 95 allow the DWP to recover its costs related to debt recovery from debtors themselves. The DWP will ensure these methods comply with data protection laws and can include traditional postal notices and electronic communications.

• Non-Benefit Payments: Clause 96 extends the Bill’s measures to non-benefit payments, such as grants, to tackle fraud more effectively. This enables the DWP to offer an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution for less serious fraud cases involving non-benefit payments.

• Administrative Penalties vs. Prosecution: Clause 97 provides the option of an administrative penalty instead of prosecution for low-value, first-time fraud cases involving non-benefit payments. This measure is intended to be fair and proportional, giving individuals the choice between penalty and court proceedings.

• Loss of Benefits: Clause 98, with an amendment, removes the automatic four-week suspension of benefits when an administrative penalty is accepted instead of prosecution. This change aims to reduce hardship for lower-level offenders, ensuring a more balanced approach to penalties while maintaining strong action against serious fraud.

• Future Considerations: The Bill’s measures are scheduled for further discussion and potential adjustments, indicating ongoing parliamentary scrutiny to ensure the legislation effectively addresses fraud and error in public spending while protecting individual rights and vulnerabilities.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, primarily characterized by requests for clarification and elaboration rather than direct opposition to the proposals. Throughout the session, members from various parties, notably Rebecca Smith (Con), Steve Darling (LD), and John Milne (LD), consistently ask detailed questions about the specifics of the proposed clauses, reflecting a desire for thorough scrutiny rather than outright disagreement. These questions cover aspects such as the timing of the code of practice, the training of DWP officials, the application of penalties, and the scope of non-benefit payments, among others. For instance, Rebecca Smith’s insistence on understanding the timing and scope of the code of practice demonstrates a cautious approach rather than opposition (e.g., ‘Will the Minister confirm when it will be published?’) Similarly, John Milne’s inquiry about costs in case a claimant is found not at fault (‘Will the Minister clarify what happens in a case where the claimant is found to be not guilty?’) indicates a focus on fairness and accountability. However, there are no instances of overt disagreement or rejection of the clauses; instead, members are seeking assurances and detailed explanations, suggesting a level of concern mitigated by constructive dialogue. This leads to the conclusion that the session is characterized by moderate scrutiny and cautious dialogue rather than strong opposition, hence the rating of 2 for disagreement.