Georgia Gould MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are determined to deliver high-quality public services and better value for money for the taxpayer. We have committed to introducing a public interest test to assess whether expiring contracts could provide better outcomes and better value in-house, and that was included in the national procurement policy statement.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Data · Hansard source

  More

  When we came into power, the Government commissioned a comprehensive state of digital government review, which demonstrated just how far we have to go. It set out a picture of fragmentation, silos and a failure to maximise the opportunity of data to personalise and target services. The average UK adult citizen spends a week and a half dealing with government bureaucracy every year. The Government have set out a plan to change this, and we are taking wide-ranging action: from creating the national data library to increasing the number of services that use gov.uk One Login.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Data · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate this collegiate style of discussion. There is a huge amount to do here. When we came into power, we set out, as I said, a review of the picture that showed just how hard it is for citizens to negotiate. When moving home, one has to announce it to 10 different organisations using different public services, sometimes 40 different services, so we need to change. We have not waited for the review. We have already set out our own plans, but we will of course respond to external reviews that come forward.

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

  More

  As I set out, these measures are already covered, and the proposals would potentially reduce sentences from 10 years to seven years. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want those who defraud the public sector to get lower sentences than those who would defraud the private sector.

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

  More

  The Henry VIII power is to ensure that any other legislation is in line with this legislation. We do not expect it to be used on lots of occasions, but it will be used on some. We welcome the Opposition’s support for the extension to the limit for investigating covid fraud. I thank the Committee again for its work on the Bill, which will ensure that we take action against fraud wherever it occurs. Question put and agreed to . Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause s 100 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question p roposed , That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

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

  More

  As I set out previously, the PSFA will collect personal data necessary only for the relevant purposes and will ensure that it is not excessive. Any data not relevant to the stated purposes will be erased in line with the data retention policy, which specifies that data connected to a suspected fraud is held for up to five years following resolution. Data that is not connected is held for up to two years. The use of the powers will be governed by the Data Protection Act 2018 and other data protection legislation. Amendment 3 agreed to. Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 68 Crown etc application Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Critically, we have been clear that the team will be small. However, as I have said, if the practical use of these powers goes well—we expect it to, because they are widely used in government—there is the opportunity to grow the team. Importantly, these will be highly trained officers who are specialists in this work. They will have that breadth of experience. In the first instance, we expect around 40 cases a year, but as I said, that is subject to change as time goes on. The team will be higher executive officers or above in the PSFA. Authorised investigators must also be higher executive officers or above. That means that they will receive further training on PACE powers. Where PACE stipulates that a decision must be made by an officer with a rank of inspector or above, schedule 1 states that it will be taken by an authorised investigator of senior executive officer grade or above. That is proportionate. These are highly trained officers. We specifically ask that the powers not be given out widely, but to a group of people who will have a huge amount of training and oversight to be able to exercise them proportionately, and in a way that recovers fraud but also safeguards those being investigated. Question put and agreed to. Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 67 Disclosure of information etc: interaction with external constraints

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

  More

  When I previously went through the different regulatory areas, I also went through which would be subject to the negative and affirmative procedures. I absolutely hear the point; the critical point for me is that the key provisions sit in the Bill. We do not expect changes made by regulation to change the key areas of oversight and the safeguards but, as the shadow Minister says, the provision for changes is there if necessary. Question put and agreed to. Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 69 The Public Sector Fraud Authority Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Let me address those questions. The first thing to say on personal or sensitive information is that the teams will of course remain subject to data protection legislation and fulfil all their obligations under the law. Only information that is pertinent and necessary to the review or inspection process will be shared with external bodies, and that will be done in accordance with information handling rules. The team in the Cabinet Office will be a small, separate team that does not undertake day-to-day investigations; the team will be created to exercise the reviewing powers in the Bill. Its members will take direction from, and report to, the independent chair. They are intended to carry out the day-to-day oversight work as well as to support the functioning of the independent chair, both administratively and in conducting their formal reviews. A similar approach is taken by other independent persons who have a duty to conduct independent reviews or monitoring, and who require support from a Department —for instance, the independent Prevent commissioner for the Home Office. There is provision within the Bill for the PSFA to become a statutory body that will further separate out these functions. I reiterate the point that I made in response to the amendment: we do expect, as is normal process, that there will be a parliamentary role in the appointment of the chair, but we will continue to stay open to all suggestions as the Bill progresses. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I am pleased to provide that clarification. As I said, the critical point is that this provision is very limited in its scope, and the right to appeal set out in the Bill cannot be removed. In my initial remarks, I gave an example of making the appeal process more efficient, such as by allowing an appeal against a penalty or debt to be heard at the same time. The provision is limited to how appeals are operationalised, and does not affect the right to have an appeal. Question put and agreed to. Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 62 Code of practice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 67, page 36, line 10, leave out “disclosure, obtaining or use” and insert “processing”. This amendment clarifies that clause 67(3) applies in relation to all processing of information and makes it consistent with clause 67(1) and (2)).

• 6 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government take the security of critical national infrastructure extremely seriously. The UK’s national technical authorities, including the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the UK National Authority for Counter-Eavesdropping, already provide expert guidance and best practice to owners and operators of UK critical national infrastructure, including on risk assessments and supply chains. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

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

  More

  It is brilliant to hear about my hon. Friend’s leadership in supporting small businesses and the work they are doing in her constituency. We are absolutely determined that SMEs should have that fair crack. The new national procurement policy statement asks us to maximise spend with small businesses. It also sets stretching and transparent targets for each Department, which will be brought to the House. We will be held to account for delivering on them.

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I look forward to spending another day with him in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill Committee later. I have regular discussions with the Crown Commercial Service on a range of issues.

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

  More

  We have been absolutely clear that there are huge opportunities for AI to support the public sector to better personalise services and save money, but we have to keep up with the speed of innovation in how we buy. I have heard from SMEs specialising in AI and digital transformation that the way we are doing procurement is too slow and too inflexible to keep up with that pace. That is why I am working with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to set up a new digital commercial centre for excellence to make sure that that changes, and that we have the best innovation from my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country in Government.

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

  More

  First, I want to make absolutely clear that I was not accusing the hon. Member of any fraud, but just using a hypothetical. In that instance, the PSFA would use the lump sum direct deduction orders, so they would be able to take the full amount. They would not need to use the direct earnings attachment. It would be a lump sum direct deduction order that would recover that money. As I said, there are no limits to that, except that it does not cause hardship in meeting essential living expenses. I hope that provides some reassurance. The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation. The amendment seeks to remove the 40% cap for fraud, allowing a higher percentage of regular deductions to be made. To be absolutely clear, for lump sum direct deduction orders, there is no maximum limit on the total amount of deductions. However, the lump sum deduction must still adhere to the core principles, in meeting essential living expenses and be otherwise fair. That ensures that where a higher proportion of the payable amount is present in the account, we can recover the debt more efficiently while maintaining those key safeguards. We are also able to issue a lump sum direct deduction order and then establish a regular direct deduction order. That allows us to take an initial higher amount of deduction, with regular payments thereafter where appropriate. This is a better route than allowing for a higher level of deductions. It builds on established practice, is proportionate while still being impactful, and it limits the disincentive to earn that an unlimited regular deduction would create. A too-high regular deduction would disincentivise earnings so strongly that it would result in slower, not faster, recovery of funds for our public services. I turn to clause 22, which sets out the amount of deductions that there may be under an order. We have ensured that the amount of debt we collect at any given time is fair. That is why we established maximum limits based on whether debt was accrued due to fraud or error. We have discussed the safeguards and precedent at length, and the powers here build on precedent across Government. A key consideration throughout the creation of the debt measures was to robustly prevent hardship, learning from best practice. The challenge was to balance that with the need to send a strong deterrent message to those who have the means to pay their fraud and error-related debt to Government, but refuse to do so. Clause 22 caters for that by ensuring that the terms of the order will not cause the liable person, any other account holder, or a person living with or financially dependent on the liable person or any other account holder, hardship in meeting essential living expenses. To ensure we include other considerations outside of this list, the terms of the order are also required to be otherwise fair in all circumstances. Clause 23 provides the contents and effect of direct deduction orders. Regular and lump sum direct deduction orders must specify the amount, or a method for calculating the amounts, to be deducted and when. A regular deduction may specify different amounts or different methods to be deducted at different times. For example, the first deducted amount may be higher than the following payments to recover the debt in the most efficient way possible. Deductions may not be made until 28 days after an order has been made. That provides a safeguard for the liable person, allowing them the requisite time and opportunity to request a review under clause 45. Banks must comply with the direct deduction order, whether regular or lump sum, to ensure adherence to these measures. A penalty may be imposed for failure to comply under clause 53. Clauses 22 and 23 send a strong message to those with fraud and error-related debt to the Government, while preventing hardship and protecting those who are vulnerable. They play an essential role in the operation of a direct deduction order and align with the core principle of seeking the effective recovery of public funds. I have set out the powers that are available under the Bill, but as I said earlier, they do not prevent the Government also being able to use powers that are already available, such as applying to the courts to seize assets. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 22 and 23, I commend both to the Committee.

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

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to respond to the amendment and to clarify an error that I made in a previous discussion that might have contributed to some confusion. When I talked about the recovery of debt and a limit to the amount that will be recovered, I mentioned up to 40% of assets when I meant to say credited amounts. To be clear, in the instance that the shadow Minister mentioned—say the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire defrauded the Government, they had £200,000 in their account and it was a lump sum, the powers would enable the PSFA to recover that money, with the safeguards of not leaving that person in financial destitution. The 40% is related to ongoing repayments and the speed of repayment. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Member. To the points that Opposition Members have made about vulnerability and training, the PSFA authorised officers will be highly trained. They are subject to professional training and a code of ethics within that. That includes the kind of professional curiosity that the hon. Member for Torbay talked about. On debt recovery, they will work to establish debt practice, including the debt management vulnerability toolkit, which is publicly available. I would be pleased to send him those documents so he can understand the vulnerability assessments that will be made and scrutinise them. To go through the detail of the clauses, specifically for a regular direct deduction order, the total deductions in a 28-day period must not exceed either 40% or 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period: for fraud, 40% is the maximum; for error, the maximum is 20%. Throughout the Bill, we have sought to bring powers that are used elsewhere into the PSFA, not to create brand new powers for the PSFA. This provides assurance of their effective and proportionate use, and we are doing the same here. The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation, such as the DWP’s existing direct earnings attachment powers and the Child Maintenance Service deduction from earnings order powers.

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

  More

  Direct deduction orders will be an effective tool in recovering money owed to the public sector. However, it is important that we include measures in the Bill to make clear the obligations of banks and account holders with regard to the orders. Clause 26 introduces restrictions on accounts from the perspective of banks. The bank must ensure that the account is not closed at the request of the account holder. If the notices relates to a lump sum direct deduction order, the bank must also secure that no transactions occur that would reduce the balance below the amount specified on the order, or the bank may transfer the specified amount, or the amount in the account if it is lower, into a hold account created by the bank to protect it. The bank must ensure that no transaction occurs that would result in the hold account’s balance falling below the amount transferred into it. When a bank transfers an amount into a hold account, it must ensure that in doing so, it does not cause any disadvantage to the liable person or any account holder. These provisions are essential and are a key safeguard to ensure that funds required for recovery are preserved while also protecting account holders from any disadvantage, thereby maintaining trust and fairness in the enforcement process. Clause 27 imposes restrictions on account holders to prevent them from taking any action that may frustrate the effect of the first notice or direct deduction order, which the shadow Minister raised concerns about. To clarify, frustrating the effect of the first order in this context means frustrating the effect of the proposed direct deduction order, the terms of which are set out in the first notice. Frustrating the effect of the first notice or the final direct deduction order might include a liable person creating a new bank account in order to redirect the payment of their salary, or the liable person falsifying the extent of their protected essential living expenses. These restrictions are vital to ensure that funds necessary for debt recovery are not deliberately concealed or moved, thereby upholding the fairness and integrity of the public fund recovery system. They are also balanced within the wider direct deduction order measure, which includes review and appeal rights that are also intended to be subject to independent oversight, to be discussed later. Should a person frustrate the effect of the first order or direct deduction notice, a trained authorised officer may decide to impose a penalty under clause 53.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. This clause and his questions really highlight the balance between safeguarding vulnerability—ensuring that people are not left without money to be able to support themselves and dependants—and recovering all the money owed to the Government. Hopefully, the shadow Minister will be reassured that alternative recovery methods will be available, including using other powers in the Bill to gather information on, or recover money from, other accounts held by that liable person. If an individual continues to try to frustrate the process, as the shadow Minister has described, there are civil penalties through deduction orders of £300. If all the powers in the Bill are frustrated, the authorised officers will be able to apply to the courts to seize assets and to use other powers available. There are a number of options to ensure the full recovery of defrauded money to the state. Question put and agreed to. Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 Restrictions on accounts: banks 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

  That is right.

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

  More

  The clause sets out the action to be taken if the amount in the account is lower than the amount specified in the direct deduction order. Should that situation arise in relation to a lump sum direct deduction order, no deduction is to be made by the bank, and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. If it occurs in relation to a regular deduction order, the order is to be read as requiring the deduction to be made on the same day the following week. If the amount in the account still remains lower, no deduction is to be made and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. That approach ensures that individuals are not unduly penalised or driven into financial hardship because of insufficient funds, while maintaining the integrity of the debt recovery process through prompt communication and reassessment. Having outlined the key provisions of the clause, I commend it to the Committee.

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

  More

  Among the powers in the Bill there is only the power to recover debt through the ways that I have set out. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 Requirement for banks to provide information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 34, page 20, line 30, leave out from “review” to end of line 35. This amendment leaves out provision that is not needed; clause 29(5), (6) and (8) makes the necessary provision.

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

  More

  A new employer can inform the PSFA only if they are aware that this is in place. That will be clear in published guidance. If they do not know, they obviously cannot inform us, and they will not be penalised; I want to reassure the shadow Minister on that point. There will be a £300 fixed penalty for failure to comply with the requirement—that is only a genuine failure to comply—and we will provide more information on the penalties as we move forward. Question put and agreed to. Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 45 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 Penalty relating to fraud Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Clause 36 establishes a number of definitions for terms used in the direct deduction order section, including the meaning of “bank” as a person who is authorised to accept deposits or to issue electronic money. This definition is supported by reference to appropriate legislation and regulation. The clause confirms that references to amounts in accounts must be in credit, thus ensuring that we do not push people into overdrafts. It also sets out how a person can hold an account by having their name to it, either solely, jointly or as a signatory. It is important that we have clear, agreed definitions for such terms, to aid the operationalisation of these powers and to prevent unwarranted challenges, such as whether a financial institution is in scope of the Bill.