Georgia Gould MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We know of the brilliant craftsmanship of the Stoke-on-Trent industry. We are committed to supporting British businesses and ensuring that they have the best chance of winning public contracts. Our new national policy statement asks contracting authorities to maximise spend with small and medium-sized enterprises and to support our industrial strategy.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The guidance we put into the national procurement policy statement makes it clear that we want to deliver best value for money, which means not just cost but ensuring that we support growth and local suppliers. That allows local authorities to make decisions on what will create jobs and best opportunities for communities in the procurement of food.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government. We have learned from local authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham, which built economic value into procurement. The Procurement Act 2023 makes new tools available, but what is critical is how they are used to deliver innovation and growth. The Government will be consulting on new plans to set targets for small and medium-sized enterprise use for the wider public sector. We have delivered extensive training and developed new communities of practice to help make the most of this huge opportunity. As my hon. Friend has said, much of this is about culture and the use of the tools. We will be working with local authorities around the country to deliver on this enormous opportunity.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the House’s continuing passion for procurement, and my hon. Friend has helped to lead the way in this area at Hammersmith and Fulham council. I have seen how much energy there is in local government to use procurement to deliver jobs and growth. The Government are working on plans to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for local employers. Public procurement can be a key tool in driving growth and supporting businesses across the economy. Our new national procurement policy statement looks to maximise spend with small businesses and asks contracting authorities to work collaboratively on local and regional growth plans.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for raising the critical issue of whistleblowing. I assure her of how seriously the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston—myself, and both Secretaries of State take the issue of whistleblowing. I hope, as I set out our responses to the NAO report and our wider work, to offer the reassurance that the Opposition are looking for. When it comes to internal and external fraud against the public sector, Government Departments are responsible for their own whistleblowing arrangements and for overseeing arrangements in their arm’s length bodies. For example, the Department for Business and Trade publishes and regularly updates its guidance, “Whistleblowing: list of prescribed people and bodies”, which details who individuals can raise a concern with. The list comprises bodies and individuals to whom making a disclosure qualifies the individual who makes the disclosure for legal protections under the Employment Rights Act 1996—for instance, protection against being dismissed by their employer for the disclosure. Whistleblowers can report concerns about public sector fraud to bodies such as the NAO’s Comptroller and Auditor General, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Auditors General for Wales and for Scotland, the NHS Counter Fraud Authority and various other bodies listed on gov.uk. The NAO report that the hon. Lady referred to set out that between 2019 and 2022 fraud one of the most common concerns raised—I think it accounted for 40% of concerns. On the review of the existing processes, the key findings of the recent NAO publication related to the need to increase awareness of the channels for whistleblowing, to improve the experience of whistleblowers and to ensure that lessons are learned, as the hon. Lady set out. In the light of the NAO report, and with the intention of opening up as many avenues as possible for the reporting of public sector fraud, the PSFA will explore with the Department for Business and Trade whether it would be appropriate to add the PSFA to the list of prescribed organisations. That would go alongside the existing ability to raise fraud within a public sector body or Department. We will also use the findings of the report, as well as the NAO’s good practice guide to whistleblowing in the civil service, to inform our approach. The DWP has established processes by which members of the public and staff can report suspected benefit fraud. Members of the public can report fraud online at gov.uk, by phone or by post, while DWP staff follow clear internal guidance and processes. Given the intent to maintain the focus of this legislation, the recent work by the National Audit Office, the existing DWP processes and the steps the PSFA is taking to continue to improve the whistleblowing offer for public sector fraud, I will resist new clause 16.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by talking about clauses 64 and 65, and then I will address the amendment. It is absolutely necessary that there is appropriate independent oversight to ensure the powers in the Bill are used appropriately, and we welcome debate on that. That is why we have introduced the power to appoint an independent person, which might be one person—an independent reviewer—or an organisation such as His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. They will augment the existing oversight structures laid out elsewhere in the Bill, such as the role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, set out in clause 9, which will investigate the most serious complaints into the PSFA’s use of entry, search and seizure powers. Clause 64 mandates that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers in the Bill. The independent reviewer will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They will produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament. That ensures there is both public and parliamentary accountability in the role of the independent person outlined in the Bill. As we state in the explanatory notes, we intend to make the duty imposed by the clause in two ways. First, the Government will commission His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to inspect the PSFA’s use of the new investigative powers, which can include the end-to-end investigative process and decision making. HMICFRS has a long-standing history, going back to 1856, and it independently assesses and reports on the performance of police and fire and rescue services in the UK, as well as other public bodies with investigatory powers, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. HMICFRS reports are already made available publicly, and are an efficient way to hold bodies accountable for their investigative practices. Secondly, the Government are creating a new position for an independent reviewer to whom the PSFA’s oversight team will report. The independent reviewer will assess how the PSFA exercises the powers given to it in the Bill. The independent reviewer will carry out reviews and report on whether the use of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, as well as considering areas where HMICFRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The independent reviewer could, for instance, consider live case reviews or conduct supplementary reviews between those undertaken by other bodies, or look specifically at how the PSFA has taken forward recommendations from past reviews. The independent chair will have discretion in determining where to focus their resources. We do not believe it is necessary to legislate in the manner proposed by the amendment to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament will scrutinise the independent person’s report, which the Minister is obliged to lay in Parliament. There is also an established process for agreeing posts that should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committees without the need for legislative provision. That process is to reach agreement on posts suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny between my Department and the Chair of the relevant Select Committee. We will be following that process for the appointment of the independent chair. We hope that offers assurance to the hon. Member for Torbay. The appointment of the independent reviewer will also fully comply with the governance code on public appointments which is overseen by the Commissioner of Public Appointments.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for those questions. As I set out, the code of practice provides additional guidance and operational detail, but the important thing is that the key safeguards we have discussed are covered in a great deal of detail in the Bill. We have gone through the right to appeal and the level of the authorised officer who will be looking at every part of the process, whether that is the initial decision or the review. We have discussed the timeframes, all the appeal routes that are built into the legislation, and the oversight. The key safeguards to the operationalisation of these powers are in the Bill in a great deal of detail. It is right that I went through the kind of operational detail that the code of practice will cover. To hopefully offer some reassurance on the questions of consultation and precedent, in developing the code of practice, we are building on a great deal of precedent within Government—from the DWP, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—on the use of these powers and what has worked well. There is already a huge amount of consultation, at ministerial and official level, on developing the code. There will be a public consultation on it as well, and, as we have already committed, we will bring forward the code of practice within the parliamentary process. Question put and agreed to. Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64 Independent review

• 6 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical issue. The Employment Rights Bill will introduce new measures that will give staff and their chosen trade union a meaningful shot at gaining statutory recognition. I hope those provisions will ensure that GMB Union members across the country can have their voices heard in their workplaces.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is critical that Government property and Government assets support economic growth in constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 20 together—while the rest of the ministerial team go and have a cup of tea. The wide-ranging interest in this topic shows just how much the £400 billion spent on procurement in the public sector matters for growth and for communities across the UK. I was recently in Grimsby, where small businesses are delivering local growth, innovating and providing more than half of local employment. MPs know that SMEs are vital for providing local employment in their communities. Under the previous Government, however, we became overly reliant on large consultants and a small number of big companies. We have too often ended up locked into expensive, poor performing contracts, with companies able to drive up prices in closed markets. That has to change. The new national procurement policy statement asks the public sector to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises, and the Government are leading the way by setting ambitious public targets for Departments on spending on SMEs.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome this question. It is so important to small businesses that they are paid on time—I have heard time and again that late payments threaten their very existence. The construction playbook states that project bank accounts “should be used unless there are compelling reasons not to.” We are determined to crack down on late payments. We have announced regular spot checks on prompt payments throughout our supply chains, and in the Budget the Chancellor said that the Government will be required to exclude suppliers from bidding for major contracts if they cannot demonstrate that they pay within an average of 45 days. I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on this matter, and I very much enjoyed meeting her to discuss it. I know that she has built a wide coalition, and I hope we can continue to work together on these important issues.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome these questions— I could happily speak about procurement all day, because it is absolutely critical for delivering the Government’s missions. The Procurement Act 2023 removes some of these challenges, but we need to do more. That is why we are setting ambitious and stretching targets for direct spend on SMEs and have asked officials to review our framework contracts, in particular, to ensure that they are more accessible to SMEs. The challenges raised by businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency are the same as those I have heard described by SMEs across the country—our procurement is too complex and too slow, and it needs to change. We need to get that £400 billion into real jobs and SMEs in our communities.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  That is such an important question. We need to deliver value for money in how we do procurement. One change that we made in the new national procurement policy statement is ensuring that contracting authorities procure collaboratively, crack down on some of the excessive costs of private frameworks and ensure that they are transparent. We are using AI to streamline procurement, and have set up a new commercial innovation challenge at the heart of government to ensure buying supports innovation and growth.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  There is so much young talent in Ipswich and in communities across the country, but too many young people are struggling to get on to the employment ladder, and we know the scarring impact that that can have on their lives. We need to ensure that the £400 billion spent on public procurement means something in communities such as Ipswich. We are streamlining how we measure social and economic value so that there is a very clear ask that is linked to our missions, including the opportunity mission, to deliver jobs and skills to young people out of work. We are asking those who win Government contracts to advertise in local jobcentres so that people in Ipswich and communities across the UK can benefit from Government contracts.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  As soon as I saw my hon. Friend’s name on the Order Paper, I knew that he would mention buses, because he has never missed an opportunity to raise this critical issue with me. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK’s domestic bus manufacturing industry and ensuring that the procurement system recognises the high standards and quality of UK manufacturers. The new national procurement policy statement aligns with our industrial strategy and pushes us to maximise spend with SMEs. As a result, contracting authorities across the country must now consider how their procurement strategies can support the industrial strategy, including the bus manufacturing strategy.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the support for the clause. To clarify, the operational costs of running PSFA operations and investigations will not be included in reasonable costs. There is work being done through the test and learn period by the enforcement unit to inform those costs, and guidance will be published in due course. As I have set out previously, there will be independent oversight of the full use of these powers, by a team that will answer to an independent chair. They will report to Parliament and will look at all aspects of the use of these powers, including the cost. If it is not established by agreement, we will have to apply to a court or tribunal to determine what the debt is, so there will be that added aspect of independence. For asset seizing, we can apply for orders through the courts. In evidence we heard from the financial industry, there were questions about how the powers will work together, and there is work going on to respond to some of those questions. Our teams are working very closely with those financial bodies. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Payable amounts Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. Clause 13 allows the Government to use the proposed recovery powers to recover late penalty payments and associated interest deriving from the civil penalty regime that is introduced in chapter 5 and any additional relevant costs, either awarded by a court or tribunal or incurred in exercising the recovery powers. In all of these cases, money will be owed to the public purse. Once it has been recovered, it can be used for public good. If these sums were to remain unrecovered, it would not have this positive impact. We are building strong safeguards and appeal routes into all our measures, including on the application of penalties. Decisions to impose a penalty will be taken by authorised officers, and we have discussed the training that they will have. It is also intended that the debt recovery powers will be overseen by the independent oversight mechanisms, which we will turn to later in the session. Where we are justified in using the proposed recovery powers to seek payments directly from bank accounts and pay-as-you-earn earnings, we want to be able to use them. The penalties and costs will all derive from the fraud investigations that the Public Sector Fraud Authority will carry out. Clause 14 restricts when chapter 4 recovery powers can be used to recover penalties. They can only be used when the timeframe for appealing a penalty has passed without any appeal being bought or any appeal against the penalty has been finally determined by a tribunal. Penalties are issued for important reasons to encourage compliance and to help make the whole Bill work effectively, and to help make the PSFA effective in its efforts to tackle fraud against the public sector. Penalties are not something that can be put into the back of a drawer and forgotten about. Fraud is an expensive business for Government. It costs us money when people defraud us. It costs us money to investigate, to take proceedings through courts and to pursue recovery. It is not fair that these costs are shouldered by law-abiding citizens. It is right that those who do not follow correct procedures are penalised and have to pay. Clauses 13 and 14 enable us to hold debtors to account, driving up recovery of what is owed by letting us use the recovery powers in a wider but proportionate manner and with the appropriate safeguards and appeal routes in place. However, this has to be done with respect of due and proper process, which is exactly what this clause mandates. These clauses are important safeguards that rightly prioritise the liable person’s right to appeal a penalty decision over the recovery of the penalty. It provides us with operational flexibility to recover a range of debts, driving up the value for money of our operations. I commend clauses 13 and 14 to the Committee.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause outlines the information notices that can be given to a bank, how the bank must comply, the information it must provide and how the information can be used. To determine whether to make a direct deduction order, an account information notice or a general information notice may be given. This is crucial in ensuring that sufficient financial information is gathered to facilitate informed debt recovery decisions, thereby enabling the effective recovery of public funds. The information provided by the banks is necessary and proportionate to ensure that the liable person’s financial situation is considered before a direct deduction order is made. This approach is already used by HMRC for its comparable direct recovery of debt, and it is also requested by the DWP in part 2 of the Bill. The information gathered will protect vulnerable people, prevent hardship and safeguard non-liable joint account holders, while acknowledging the vital need to recover public funds lost to fraud and error. Banks must comply with a notice under the clause, and may be liable to a penalty for failure to comply without a reasonable excuse—this will ensure that the measures are adhered to. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from notifying account holders that they have received a notice under clause 19, to avoid tipping off debtors and thereby prevent money from being moved from the account. Overall, the clause is necessary in furthering the effective recovery of public funds. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 19, I commend it to the Committee.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I referred in my opening remarks to the positive and ongoing conversations that we are having with banks and the UK finance industry, and that was reflected in the evidence we heard. A UK Finance representative said that a number of conversations with industry have taken place since the measures were announced, and referred to “constructive conversations”. Concerns were raised about safeguards for the charges that banks could put in place under the PSFA measures, and I have already outlined some of the safeguards in place. The deduction of a bank’s administrative costs should not cause the liable person, other account holders, those living with the liable person or joint account holder, or those financially dependent on the liable person or joint account holder hardship in meeting essential living expenses, and they should be fair. There are further protections in the Bill. Clause 37 contains the powers to make further provisions through regulations on the administrative charges that can be imposed by the bank. The powers will be used to introduce a cap on the charges that can be imposed under the clause and adjusted in line with inflation. To give further reassurance to the Committee, this is in line with the powers that HMRC has through the Enforcement by Deduction from Accounts (Imposition of Charges by Deposit-takers) Regulations 2016. For HMRC, the regulations specify that the amount should be “the lesser of…the amount of those administrative costs reasonably incurred by the” bank “and £55.” So there is precedent, and the necessary regulations will be made in due course. In my view, new clause 6 is not required. We have already published the Bill’s impact assessment, which sets out the minimal expected cost to businesses of its measures, where it has been possible to do so, including to banks. The impact assessment has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. DWP has also committed to providing estimates in a subsequent impact assessment of the business costs for DWP’s eligibility verification measure, within three months of Royal Assent. So DWP has already come forward to commit to bringing forward that information as part of the package. I am confident that that will provide the necessary transparency that the shadow Minister seeks, and I hope that our commitment again today to provide those costs reassures hon. Members. Equally, we believe that the purpose of amendment 23 is already provided for through the regulation-making powers under clause 37. As I stated, we have consulted and will continue to consult the banks to implement the measures in part 1 of the Bill, as set out in the published impact assessment. In part 1, the costs to banks are expected to be minimal and offset by the ability of banks to recover administrative costs from the liable person. Clause 24 enables the banks to recover administrative costs from the liable person, and clause 37 provides for regulations to be made in relation to the costs that a bank may recover by virtue of clause 24. We intend the regulations to be reasonable for those paying and for the banks. Before introducing such regulations, a consultation must occur with those representing the interests of banks. We are committed to continuing engagement and consultation with the financial services sector through the passage of the Bill and its implementation —indeed, that has been ongoing since evidence was given last week. It is important to put the cost to banks in the context of the amount that will be recovered under the Bill, which we estimate to be £940 million—money that is vital to delivering public services. It is right that every part of the system plays its part in recovering money that was lost to fraud. Having outlined the key provisions in the clause, I urge the Committee to agree that it should stand part of the Bill. I have just received a message: I thought I said that DWP would produce an impact assessment in 12 months, but I said three months. I assure everyone that it is 12 months. Question put and agreed to . Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 25 Insufficient funds Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I really appreciate the focus on vulnerability and oversight, because with these powers comes a huge amount of responsibility. The questions that have been raised today are really important. First, the joint account holder will be able to make their own representations for review. The starting point will be the equal split, as was set out, but they will be able to make representations and ask to have their rights reviewed as part of the investigative process. On the wider point about vulnerability, which was well made, there is a huge amount of established practice in Government, and the PSFA will seek to learn from that. The Government debt management vulnerability toolkit will be utilised. All the authorised officers will have training in vulnerability and economic abuse. Vulnerability assessments will take place in every single instance of debt recovery and vulnerability will be kept under review. A range of training and safeguards is in place around our approach. On clause 21, I reassure the shadow Minister that there is precedent in HMRC. There can be both an internal review and an appeal, which is set out in clauses 34 and 31. A wider point was made about whether we have looked at different and wider powers. The thing to remember about the powers is that in the majority of cases, but not all cases, we expect them to be used to recover funds from organisations rather than individuals, which is why we have focused on the financial side of debt recovery and penalties. Other powers are used by other Departments. I said earlier that we want to continue to be able to use other legal procedures to pursue recovery, including liability orders, and the Bill will not stop us doing so. We have a range of options in front of us.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I go into the detail of the clauses, I want to take a minute, as we are entering a new chapter, to make some opening remarks about the wider powers. Chapter 4 of part 1 introduces debt recovery powers. In 2021-22, detected fraud and error outside of tax and welfare was £823 million, of which only £190 million—23%—was recovered. Alex Rothwell, from the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, told us in his evidence that the Department recovered only 12% of fraud and error. There is a long way to go in this space, which is why the powers are so important. We know that recovery of fraud-related debt can be challenging. Debt recovery powers are limited to a small number of organisations and are therefore not available across the public sector. The Public Accounts Committee, Home Affairs Committee and National Audit Office have all strongly challenged the Government to do more across the public sector to take action on fraud loss. As part of the Bill, we are bringing debt recovery powers into the PSFA to enable the Government to better recover fraud debt outside of tax and welfare. We heard from Alex Rothwell that these powers will be incredibly helpful for us to recover more money. The powers are not new to Government—HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service already have the power to recover debt from bank accounts, and DWP and the Child Maintenance Service can recover debt from earnings. We will utilise best practice from those organisations in operating the powers. Although we initially expect to use them in just a small number of cases, we hope that this will grow as and when the PSFA enforcement unit expands. We have consulted widely with a range of fraud and debt stakeholders, including public bodies, academics and non-public sector groups. Banks, charities and civil liberty groups have been engaged so that we can incorporate lessons learnt from the experience of debt recovery processes in Government. We know that those in debt can be in challenging situations, which is why the use of the powers will follow best practice across Government, including the Government debt management function standards, and guidance such as the debt management vulnerability toolkit. Importantly, the powers will only be used once efforts to engage and secure voluntary repayment have been unsuccessful. The only people and companies who will face the powers are those who have the means to repay, but who refuse to do so. Those affected by the powers will have the right to make representations, apply to vary orders, request an internal review, and finally, appeal to the tribunal. The powers will be used by trained authorised officers who will be subject to independent oversight. The debt recovery powers in the Bill balance the need to recover public money efficiently, while ensuring that recovery is fair and proportionate, with robust safeguards to protect those in vulnerable situations. Clause 15 refers back to clauses 1 and 13 to define a payable amount as: a payment made as a result of fraud or error, as discovered by an investigation into suspected fraud; a penalty under the civil penalty regime established by chapter 5; and, finally, relevant costs. This creates a limitation as to the debts that the Government will be able to use the chapter 4 recovery powers on, specifically, those determined by and during an investigation into suspected fraud, including from associated penalties. We seek these recovery powers purely to further the counter-fraud activity that we will carry out to tackle fraud against the public sector. We do not intend to become a general debt recovery agency for the Government, and clause 15 confirms that. It reflects the operational context and purpose of the PSFA and its focus on tackling fraud and error. Further to that, clause 16 confirms that we will be able to seek alternative recovery action through the civil courts. Although the Bill will provide the powers to seek recovery directly through bank accounts and PAYE earnings, these might not always be the most appropriate or effective recovery route. For instance, the liable person might hold significant other property assets or keep assets or money abroad. In those cases, it would be unfair for us not to seek recovery. We therefore wish to work through established legal procedures to ensure that we can seek to pursue recovery through the most appropriate and effective mechanisms—for example, liability orders. The importance of clause 16 is that it confirms that the Bill does not limit existing powers. I commend clauses 15 and 16 to the Committee.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 24 enables a bank to deduct administrative costs that it has reasonably incurred when complying with a direct deduction order from the liable person’s account. This provision is essential to ensure that banks are adequately compensated for the administrative efforts required to comply with the orders, thereby facilitating the efficient operation of debt recovery processes while protecting account holders from undue financial strain. A direct deduction order will then specify how the bank can deduct its administrative costs while complying with the maximum amount of total deductions as specified in the clause 22. Clause 37 contains a power to make further provision through regulations as to the administrative charges which can be imposed by the banks. That power will be used to introduce a cap on the charges which can be imposed under this clause and which can be adjusted in line with inflation and to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. The amount may be deducted by the bank immediately prior to the direct deduction order. To safeguard against that causing unintended hardship, the question of deducting the bank’s administrative costs for the liable person must be taken into account when complying with the hardship considerations outlined in clause 22. That will ensure that the direct deduction order and deduction of the bank’s administrative costs do not cause the liable person, other account holders, those living with the liable person or joint account holder or those financially dependent on the liable person or joint account holder hardship in meeting essential living expenses and that the deductions are otherwise fair in all circumstances. Regarding the burdens on the financial services sector, the Government are extremely mindful of the burdens that the Bill places on industry, including financial institutions. We want to ensure that banks are not subjected to disproportionate burdens or costs in complying with these measures. As I have outlined, that is why we met with key representatives of the finance industry, including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies and the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that there is close and sustained engagement on this Bill. We heard directly from UK Finance in evidence last Tuesday. The finance sector has supported the Bill’s objectives and there are constructive conversations already taking place. The direct deduction order powers in this Bill align with those existing powers and we will continue working with the DWP to align direct deduction order processes across both Departments where possible to simplify implementation.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure the shadow Minister that there has been consultation with business representatives, and there will be further consultation as we move forward. This is a very simple action. In the event that an employee is already subject to a DEO, the employer will already be in contact with the authorised officer, so it is just a process of informing them of a change in circumstances. An employer would be very unlucky to have more than one individual who was subject to this kind of order and who had defrauded the state. We do not expect this to be a big burden on businesses; it is a small number of people. As I have set out, this provision will be used in the last instance. We want to engage people to pay back the money that they owe collaboratively and voluntarily, and there are real disincentives to getting to this place for employees, but they are there as a safeguard. We do not expect there to be large numbers, and we think that it is a very simple thing for employers to do—indeed, it is very simple for the employee to do. There is a tight timeframe, but if the individual is paying back money that has been shown to be defrauded from the state, and they change jobs, they should be able to inform the PSFA very quickly of the money that they owe.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 42 enables an employer to deduct administrative costs that they reasonably incurred when complying with a deduction from earnings order from the liable person’s earnings. A deduction from earnings order will either specify an amount, or the amount will be calculated in accordance with the order. Regulations can be made regarding the employer’s administrative costs. This regulation-making power will be used to introduce a cap on the charges that can be imposed under this clause, which can be adjusted in line with inflation and to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. This is in line with the approach taken by the Department for Work and Pensions. The regulations relating to direct earnings attachment powers state that employers may take up to a maximum of £1 per pay period for administrative costs. To safeguard against this causing unintended hardship, we must take account of deducting the employer’s administrative costs for the liable person when complying with the hardship considerations and the limitations on the amount to be deducted outlined in clause 41. This will ensure that the deduction from earnings order and deduction of the employer’s administrative costs does not cause the liable person—or those living with a liable person or financially dependent on them—hardship in meeting ordinary living expenses, and that the deductions are otherwise fair in all circumstances. The clause is essential to ensure that employers are adequately compensated for the administrative efforts required to comply with the orders, thereby facilitating the efficient operation of debt recovery processes while protecting liable persons from undue financial strain through compliance with hardship safeguards. I commend it to the Committee.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 38, 39 and 40 establish the power to administer deduction from earnings orders. A deduction from earnings order is a mechanism by which financial amounts owed can be recovered from liable persons who are in pay-as-you-earn employment. This proposed debt recovery measure is similar to existing powers already held by the Department for Work and Pensions, the Child Maintenance Service and some local authorities. Clause 38 sets out the provisions, process and requirements associated with deduction from earnings orders. The decision to make a deduction from earnings orders will be made by a trained authorised officer. The clause includes a regulation-making power, which states that the Government can make further provision through regulations concerning the meaning of “earnings” for the purposes of the orders. This may include any appropriate provisions in determining what constitutes earnings now and in the future—for example, share options that are payable through the PAYE system in the context of corporate fraud. This is necessary to ensure that we have flexibility in the future to adjust the meaning of “earnings” to be in line with social and economic changes. It makes it harder for people to deliberately alter their earnings arrangement to try and unfairly frustrate paying back what they owe. We are sending a clear message that money owed to the Government as a result of fraud or error must be repaid so that it can be used for public benefit. Clause 39 stipulates what information a deduction from earnings order must contain in order to provide clarity to both employers and liable persons on their obligations. The information that must be included in a deduction from earnings order is the amount of the deductions, how the amounts are to be deducted, when the amount should be paid and the penalties for not complying with the deduction from earnings order. A deduction from earnings order must be given to the liable person’s employer, who must comply with it. A copy of that order must also be given to the liable person. Where a liable person’s employer fails to comply with a copy of that order, they are liable to pay a fixed penalty of £300. Deductions under a deduction from earnings order cannot commence before 22 days after the order is given to an employer. We will already have been engaging with the liable person on securing repayment of what they owe. This provides them with additional notice that an amount will be deducted from their earnings. Clause 40 outlines further requirements that must be taken before a deduction from earnings order is made. The liable person must be given a notice inviting them to make representations on the proposed order. A copy of the notice must be given to the liable person’s employer. The notice must include the terms and amount recoverable and must allow 28 days for representations. That ensures fairness in the debt recovery process as the liable person has time to prepare any response. All representations made must be considered by an authorised officer before they decide to make a final deduction from earnings order in respect of the liable person or make any changes to the proposed orders that are considered appropriate. If the decision is made not to make a deduction from earnings order, we must notify the liable person and their employer. Deduction from earnings orders have been found to be an efficient and effective way to recover money owed to the Government so that it can be used to fund vital public services. It is pertinent to have this power as it affords an opportunity to recover public money lost through fraud and error, which can be immediately put back into delivering our public services that are so vital for the country. Together, the clauses play an essential role in the operation of a deduction from earnings order and align with the core principle of seeking the effective recovery of public funds, balanced by the independent oversight provisions in part 1 of the Bill. They ensure informed decisions are made and communicated, aligning with our principles of transparency and ensuring the use of the powers is safeguarded. Having outlined the main provisions in clauses 38, 39 and 40, I beg to move that they stand part of the Bill.