Georgia Gould
MP for Queen's Park and Maida Vale · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act also replaces sections 10 and 11 and of the Education and Inspections Act with an amended section 10.”
“The current system means that there are real geographical discrepancies, and sometimes there is not a trust available to set something up quickly, so we want local authorities to have the flexibility to respond quickly to demands and to offer that provision where it is needed. The hon.”
“I thank Members for the range of important questions, although I think they are broader than the individual draft regulations we are discussing today. I will start with the question about special places in specialist schools and how we can ensure that there is consistency.”
“We want to have really strong standards and consistency in critically important areas. We know some of the real challenges that young people face in misinformation and the need for digital literacy in a changing world.”
“The statutory instrument makes consequential amendments arising from those provisions. The amendments, which are to both primary and secondary legislation, are necessary to ensure that references to the legislative framework for opening new schools are correct and consistent across the statute book, and to update provisions to ensure that…”
“Currently, where a new maintained school replaces an independent school, a teacher of the independent school transferring under transfer of undertakings legislation to the new school may choose to retain their existing terms and conditions or choose to opt in to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Georgia Gould, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“There is a wide range of options available to investigators, but the critical thing is that these are circumstances where the Government have been defrauded, and the investigators will use every avenue to recover that money for the taxpayer. On the question of where the direct deduction order sits in terms of priorities, it is a non-priority order, so secured priority debts would take precedence. Non-priority orders go by date order, and further guidance will be published on that point. Question put and agreed to. Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 Regulations Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“As part of that process, investigators will want to follow the money and get a wide picture of the assets that a person or organisation holds, the different accounts they might have and where their money is as part of an investigation. As the investigation moves to debt recovery, investigators will bear all that in mind. If they are not able to recover money through the direct deduction order process, there are other avenues available, although not within this Bill. As I said earlier, they could apply to the courts to seize wider assets; in a criminal case, they could use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and I can give assurance that they will of course work with law enforcement where necessary. If it is not possible to recover money through the banks, there is also the ability to put that deduction on earnings.”
“I thank the Committee for all those questions. Both the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Torbay will be pleased to know that my notes are very similar: it is critical that we future-proof these powers as financial circumstances change and there is innovation in the sector. Clause 37 will go into some detail about the future ability to lay additional regulations, including regulations expanding the remit of direct deduction orders to cover cryptoassets. I hope that provides some reassurance. More broadly, we discussed at the start of this process the range of information-gathering powers in an investigation.”
“We are committed to avoiding undue hardship where possible, and flexibility here lets us introduce further mitigation where necessary. Why should we not go after cryptoassets, if we find that they are the preferred asset of fraudsters? We want to be able to pursue funds in the most effective way to return them to the public purse. Where necessary, we will consult, and we want to do so—indeed, this clause creates a requirement to do so in some instances. Finally, regulations will also be subject to either the affirmative or negative procedure so that Parliament is still able to scrutinise them appropriately.”
“The Bill sets out in detail the framework for how direct deduction orders will work. We wanted to set out this level of detail to add to the transparency of how this power will operate and to allow parliamentary colleagues the chance to scrutinise it properly. However, there are elements that are more appropriate to have as regulations. These are elements where we want a degree of flexibility to be able to update them to reflect wider societal, economic and technological changes, as hon. Members have just raised. For instance, why specify how orders should be shared by the Minister when we know that technology changes so quickly? Why should hardship and deduction calculations be static when there are bigger economic forces in play that impact all of us?”
“Clause 37 will future-proof the Bill, so it is critical to the discussion we have just had. It establishes regulation-making powers concerning particular elements of the direct deduction order powers. For instance, it will allow regulations to be made on how notices and orders are given, and how notices and information are to be received; how to make deduction calculations, and how to determine hardship in meeting essential living expenses; the duty of banks in carrying out deduction orders and the administration charges they can apply for doing so; the interaction between direct deduction orders under the Bill and similar orders under any other enactment; and expanding the remit of direct deduction orders to cover other types of financial products or services, such as cryptoassets.”
“I thank Members for their questions. I will start with the points that have been made about future-proofing and how important it is for the Bill to both learn from its application and stay up to date with all emerging technologies and ways of working. We cannot future-proof a Bill without providing a degree of flexibility, and that is what this clause offers. Rightly, there is a lot of detail on the face of the Bill about how these powers will be exercised, and these regulations allow some of that detail to be varied according to best practice, but they are not Henry VIII powers.”
“That is why they are excluded, but we will take them very seriously, and I have talked at length about the way they will be embedded in every part of this process. The word “Schedule” can be changed to “clause” in a Government amendment, as that is what it means. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for pointing that out. Question put and agreed to. Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 Deduction from earnings orders Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“How the Bill is exercised in terms of the deduction calculations and the notices is future-proofing the Bill and ensuring that it meets its stated objectives of preventing hardship and so on, which sit on the face of the Bill. This is about how we do that, not the aims that exist. The regulations will come before Parliament in a proportionate way, as is the normal practice. Even under the negative procedure, parliamentarians will still be able to come back on any of these points. It is a statutory duty of consultation, which ensures that the results of the consultation will be taken seriously and published. I hope that that gives some reassurance. On the question about subsection (2)(c), the hardship considerations are for PSFA and not for the banks.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“There is the ability to have a decision reviewed by an authorised officer of a higher grade and to go to a first-tier tribunal if an individual wants to challenge it, so there are significant safeguards in place for the operation of these powers. It will give the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire some reassurance to know that they have been built from existing powers and good practice already in operation in government. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“As with the other powers we have discussed, if the individual does not agree with paying back the money voluntarily and refuses, the PSFA authorised officer will have to apply to court or tribunal to recover it. So there is an independent process in place to ensure that the ability to recover the debt and all the different processes that I have run through are safeguarded, and that circumstances of vulnerability and hardship are taken into account in the initial decision making. It is made explicit in the Bill, as it will be in the training for authorised officers, that the intention is to ensure that nobody is left in hardship by repayment of debt. That will be the intention of both the voluntary agreement and these powers if a court application is made in the event of a disagreement. There are similar routes of appeal.”
“As the hon. Member set out, these are significant powers and it is essential that safeguards are in place. I assure him that the Public Sector Fraud Authority is committed to safeguards around vulnerability assessments, which will have to happen before any decision is made; maximum deduction amounts, as we have discussed; opportunities for representation, reviews and appeals, with a requirement to consider all representations; and the ability to notify a change of circumstances. The PSFA might decide not to make a deduction from earnings order if it becomes apparent that the deduction might cause a person significant hardship in meeting their ordinary living expenses.”
“We will set out further details in regulations and public guidance, but what is critical and I hope offers some reassurance is that this provision will follow the Government debt management function standards, which are publicly available and which I will share with the Committee after this sitting.”
“Clause 41 caters for this by ensuring that the terms of the order will not cause the liable person—or person living with, or financially dependent on, the liable person—hardship in meeting ordinary living expenses. The terms of the order are also required to be otherwise fair in all circumstances. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire raised a number of questions on the training of authorised officers. One very positive step of the setting up of the Public Sector Fraud Authority under the previous Government has been the professionalisation of those who work in fraud across Government. PSFA authorised officers will be trained to professional standards and will use clear best practice standards.”
“Clause 41 provides the conditions under which a deduction from earnings order may be made. We have ensured that the amount of debt we collect is fair. A key consideration throughout the creation of the debt measures was to robustly prevent hardship, learning from best practice across Government. We have also ensured that there is proportionality in the way we approach fraud-related debt versus debt accrued due to error. The definitions are set out in the Fraud Act 2006. The challenge was to balance these needs with the necessity 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. That is why we have established maximum limits based on whether debt was accrued due to fraud or error.”
“First, the previously discussed lump sum direct deduction orders are not capped. If funds are available and the proposed deduction does not cause hardship, we can seek a higher level of deduction. Secondly, a lump sum direct deduction order can be issued and then a regular direct deduction order can be established. That is a better route than allowing for a high level of deductions; it builds on established practice and remains proportionate yet impactful. Crucially, it limits the disincentive to earn that an uncapped deduction from earnings order would create, consequently resulting in ineffective and inefficient recovery of public funds. I hope that I have provided reassurance: authorised officers can apply the appropriate debt recovery method to ensure efficient recoveries.”
“The total deductions in an affected period must, as with a regular direct deduction order, not exceed either 40% or 20% of a liable person’s net earnings—40% is the maximum for frauds, and 20% the maximum for error. These direct earnings orders apply only to individuals, not companies, as the shadow Minister indicated. These powers are not new; we are making them available to the PSFA, rather than creating brand-new powers, which provides assurance of their effectiveness and proportionate use. The total deduction maximum of 40% is in line with the DWP’s existing direct earnings attachment powers and the Child Maintenance Service’s deduction from earnings orders powers. This appropriate and necessary flexibility in approach is provided for in the Bill under the direct deduction powers in two ways.”
“The shadow Minister in his previous comments raised a number of concerns about there being too much flexibility in the Bill, but amendment 20 seems to contradict some of those points. I have been very clear as we have gone through the Bill that we want to draw on existing powers and protocol in Government to ensure that we are taking on practice that we know has worked elsewhere. The 40% cap is in place in other circumstances, so we think that it is fair and proportionate, and it aligns with other practice. We have already discussed this issue, as part of the debate on amendment 19, but we strongly sympathise with the desire to recover money quickly from fraudsters.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“There is existing practice on this that works well. Question put and agreed to. Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 Suspension of deduction from earnings orders Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“As the hon. Member set out, the clause authorises regulations to be made regarding employers’ administrative costs. That will be used to introduce a cap on the charges that can be imposed under the clause. That cap can be adjusted in line with inflation and to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. That is in line with the approach taken by the DWP, which outlined the amount that an employer could charge for its administrative costs under regulation 20(9) in part 6 of the Social Security (Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 2013. The amount specified in that regulation is £1, and we expect to mirror existing regulations, but this measure gives us the power to keep the amount under review in line with inflation. An impact assessment has been published, and we expect the impact on businesses to be minimal.”
“That is important so that the liable person knows their rights, employers know their obligations, and the Government can fairly and collectively recover what is owed. Having outlined the key provisions in clauses 43 and 45 to 49, I commend them to the Committee.”
“Appeals can be lodged only following an internal review. The liable person will have 28 days from being notified of the internal review decision to lodge an appeal. They cannot use the appeal to challenge the amount owed; that will already have been settled. The tribunal judge may decide to uphold the appeal and vary or revoke the deduction from earnings order accordingly. They could also decide to throw out the appeal. We are developing strong and effective oversight of all measures in the Bill. It is important that there is the opportunity for independent tribunal oversight of these powers to ensure that fair, due and proper process is followed. Together, these clauses set out clear and transparent processes concerning deduction from earnings orders.”
“Instead, the review can be used, for instance, to challenge whether a deduction from earnings order is the most appropriate form of repayment or whether the deduction amount is fair and affordable. The reviewing officer will be of a higher grade than the original decision maker. They may decide to uphold, vary or revoke the deduction from earnings order. The decision will be based on an assessment of the material held and any relevant new information provided by the liable person. Internal reviews provide a straightforward and affordable way for the liable person to present a challenge to deduction from earnings order decision making. Clause 49 establishes the process for lodging an appeal of a review decision around deduction of earnings orders. Appeals will be heard at the first-tier tribunal.”
“If the direct deduction order is revoked, notice must be given to the employer and the liable person. The clause is necessary to ensure that deduction from earnings orders are promptly revoked once the payable amount has been recovered, preventing overpayments and ensuring transparency with employers and liable persons. Clause 48 establishes the process to request an internal review of decisions made by our trained authorised officers around deduction from earnings orders. The liable person will have 28 days from being notified of an order, or of a decision pertaining to a request to vary an order, to request a review. They cannot use the internal review to challenge the amount owed, as that will already have been settled—that is similar to previous clauses.”
“That will be achieved by giving a revised version of the order to the employer and giving a copy of the revised version to the liable person. Where we propose to vary a deduction from earnings order, we must give the liable person an opportunity to make representations about the proposed variation. Clause 46 safeguards the use of the powers. By allowing the deduction from earnings order to be varied, with an opportunity for representations to be made, the clause enables flexibility in the debt recovery process. That ensures that repayments remain fair and appropriate, while ensuring transparent communication with the employer and liable persons. Clause 47 provides the authority to revoke a deduction from earnings order. The order must be revoked if the payable amount has been recovered.”
“That ensures responsiveness to changes in circumstances, while maintaining clear communication with employers and liable persons, and a fair and transparent debt recovery process. Clause 45 outlines that a liable person can apply to vary a deduction from earnings order. The applicant must be notified of the decision on the application. The clause is essential to the Bill, as it is a key safeguard that protects the liable person, giving them the opportunity to notify us, for example, of any changes in circumstances that would impact what they can repay. That ensures that the debt recovery mechanism is fit for purpose and for use, by allowing the order to remain appropriate and in line with the circumstances of those affected. Clause 46 allows for a deduction from earnings order to be varied on application by the liable person or otherwise.”
“Clause 43 and clauses 45 to 49 set out clear processes for the variation, suspension and revocation of deduction from earnings orders and establish the review and appeal rights. There have been many questions about those rights, which form a critical part of the Bill. Clause 43 defines the circumstances under which the operation of deduction from earnings may be suspended. An order may be suspended and restarted at any time. For that to happen, notification must be provided to the employer to which the order was originally given. We must then notify the liable person if the requirement to make deductions and payments is suspended or restarted. The clause is necessary in order to provide flexibility, by allowing us to suspend and restart orders as needed.”
“As for why a deduction from earnings order might be suspended and restarted, that would potentially be due to a change in the liable person’s employment or financial circumstances, or as part of administrative adjustments. Suspension allows for appropriate reassessment, ensuring that deductions remain fair and aligned with the individual’s current situation. For instance, if a liable person changes jobs, the suspension enables the updating of payment arrangements with the new employer. Additionally, it may be necessary to suspend deductions temporarily in the case of financial hardship to prevent undue burden to the liable person. The flexibility to suspend and restart ensures that the debt recovery process is effective and equitable.”
“Let me take those questions in turn. The process of review is similar to the one we previously discussed: the decision will first be reviewed within the PSFA by an authorised officer of a higher grade, and then go to a first-tier tribunal. It will be up to the first-tier tribunal whether it takes late applications, and then there will be the ability to go to an upper tribunal. In terms of the information about a change in an individual circumstance, it would be up to the individual to inform the PSFA. It will not be doing its own monitoring of any change in circumstances. The authorised officers will give the individual clear guidance on how to contact the PSFA about the change of circumstances.”
“The purpose of deduction from earnings orders, and indeed all our recovery activity, is to effectively and efficiently recover debt so that vital funds can be used for the collective good. We will also support people changing jobs, if that is what they want to do. However, we will not support them if they are doing so to try to frustrate repaying what they owe. It will be a very simple process to let us know of changes in employment, and someone employing a person on a deduction from earnings order will already be regularly engaging with us on the repayment, so this will add minimal impact to the employer. So there is minimal impact on the liable person and minimal impact on the employer, but maximal impact in ensuring the straightforward collection of moneys owed. I commend clause 44 to the Committee.”
“Clause 44 outlines the duty of a liable person to inform the Government of any changes to their employment while they are under a deduction from earnings order. It also establishes the responsibility of the employer to let us know if the liable person leaves their employment. If the liable person takes up new employment elsewhere and informs their new employer of their deduction from earnings order, the new employer must also inform us. There is precedent for this approach in child maintenance service legislation—in section 32 of the Child Support Act 1991—with its similar deduction from earnings attachment powers. Failure to comply with these obligations could result in an authorised officer issuing a non-compliance penalty under chapter 5. There will be review and appeals rights to penalties, as well as a published code of practice.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“It is therefore essential that the PSFA has the necessary powers to issue a civil penalty not only to any individual who commits fraud, but to any business that does so. There is precedent for this power being successfully used across Government, for example in HMRC and the Home Office, which penalise businesses in relation to tax matters and for employing illegal workers. Having the power to impose a penalty on an individual on behalf of a business, in addition to on the business itself, is essential to ensure that businesses and employees may be held accountable for their actions.”
“We are targeting those who deliberately seek to defraud the public purse. The unit will also not be issuing penalties for payment resulting from official error. This key power is underpinned by robust oversight and layers of protection for individuals and businesses. We will be talking shortly about the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure there are sufficient opportunities for individuals and businesses to make representations, request internal reviews of decisions and appeal to the relevant courts. Every opportunity has been given to ensure that no one will be penalised in error or unfairly. I turn to clause 51. We know that there is a broad range of fraud attacks against the Government, from one-off cases by individuals to complex and organised attacks from supposedly legitimate businesses.”
“Criminal prosecution and civil penalties will be two distinct options for dealing with fraud cases. An authorised officer must prove an offence to the civil standard of proof—that on the balance of probabilities, evidence shows it is more likely than not that fraud occurred. The test will be informed by the professional experience, expertise, judgment and objectivity of an investigator and will be tested against legal expertise. Final determinations will be cleared by senior experienced investigators within the PSFA. This strong power is justified by the type of fraudsters we are pursuing. The PSFA can also pursue the recovery of incorrect payments as a result of genuine error via its debt recovery powers. However, we will not be penalising individuals and businesses who make genuine errors.”
“It is not enough to simply recover money lost to fraud and error. A clear message must be sent that fraudulent actions have consequences. That is why the Bill allows penalties of up to 100% of the fraud loss. That power reflects the broad range of fraud the unit will encounter. There is a well-established precedent of the effectiveness of civil penalties across Government—for example, in HMRC, the Treasury and the Environment Agency. The introduction of a robust civil penalties regime shows that there are meaningful consequences for breaking the law, even when prosecution is not appropriate or achievable. Aligning with other Departments—for example, HMRC and Treasury—the PSFA will issue civil penalties to the civil burden of proof. The PSFA will not offer offenders a choice between a civil penalty and a criminal prosecution.”
“This is a large grouping of clauses that cover the heart of this part’s new civil penalties, so the Committee will understand if I cover these issues in some depth. Clause 50 grants essential civil powers to give the PSFA a range of options with which to tackle fraud cases. These powers may be used against individuals in England and Wales. Having access to both criminal and civil powers will allow the PSFA to be more flexible and take on a broader range of cases. This access also removes unnecessary pressure from our already overburdened courts, as criminal cases are often complex and time-consuming. That means that the PSFA can deal with more cases and in a more cost-effective and efficient manner. Penalties are a key part of the deterrent message that this Government wish to send by delivering the Bill: that fraud will not be tolerated.”
“To get a case investigated by the PSFA team, in almost all cases a different public sector organisation would have to refer into the team, so a threshold would be met at that point. The team looks at the cases in front of it and decides which to pursue after considering things like the value and the harm to the wider public sector. We are talking about really serious instances of fraud. The majority will involve organisations, not individuals, but there are instances where individuals, both within organisations and separately, will have committed serious fraud and will be covered by the legislation.”
“I thank hon. Members for the range of questions and comments. Before I go into the detail of their points, it will be helpful to take a step back and talk about why were are introducing these powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority in this way. At the moment, the powers do not exist for serious cases of fraud that sit outside tax and welfare, and the powers we are discussing as part of the PSFA element actively exclude tax and welfare, which are dealt with elsewhere. There is a real gap: there are currently no civil powers to investigate very serious cases of fraud against Government, often led by organisations, in relation to procurement and grants. As we heard in oral evidence, the extreme pressure on the police means that such cases are often not a priority.”