Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)

My Lords, while I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, the reality of their drafting would give Ministers the ability to block politically inconvenient investigations. They would prevent counterfraud enforcement at any kind of scale, and they would expose the identities of civil servants investigating serious criminals. On that basis, we cannot accept them. Although we cannot agree to the amendments, it might surprise the noble Baroness that I believe there is a lot that we agree on. We agree that the measures in the Bill are powerful and must be used with care; we agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers; and we agree that robust oversight, both internal and external, is essential. With regard to ministerial oversight, for as long as the powers sit in the Cabinet Office, they will be exercised in the name of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. However, the amendments go beyond accountability; they bring the Minister into specific operational decisions. It is not appropriate to mandate that the Minister for the Cabinet Office be brought into hundreds of operational decisions in the way that the amendments suggest. First, Ministers must be free to delegate, or the work of government will grind to a halt. Your Lordships’ House would be rightly concerned if Cabinet Office Ministers, who need to make government more effective and efficient, were spending their days taking detailed counterfraud operational decisions. Secondly, it would be inappropriate for Ministers—of whichever party happens to be in power—to take operational decisions on individual enforcement cases. That would make enforcement political. It would necessarily expose every case to charges of political interference; it would place honest Ministers in an invidious position; and it would give dishonest Ministers the power to block investigations that were politically inconvenient. However, the noble Baroness is right that Ministers should know what is happening in their name. Ministers are accountable and must therefore choose how these powers should be delegated, not simply hand them over to civil servants and forget about them until a crisis occurs, which I know is a genuine concern. In response to the noble Baroness’s challenge, let me set out what Ministers will do before any of the powers are used. Ministers will scrutinise the set-up of the PSFA, its plans to use the powers, the oversight arrangements in place, and the skills and experience of authorised officers and authorised investigators. They will also decide what thresholds they wish to set and what constraints they wish to place around the exercise of powers in their name. Ministers will decide what reports they want to receive and their frequency. They will also decide how they wish to appoint authorised officers and authorised investigators, and will take a strong interest in the training, experience and professionalism of those staff. Finally, Ministers will be accountable to your Lordships’ House and the other place to show that they have done that. I am happy to commit to Ministers bringing forward a statement before the powers are first used to demonstrate that these commitments have been fulfilled. Every time there is a change of Ministers, officials will ask for the new Minister’s view on these questions, and not silently continue out of sight, which I know is a genuine concern of the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right to draw attention to how delegation works in government; it is for Ministers who are accountable to decide on the appropriate delegation. I turn to the seniority of civil servants provided for in proposed new subsection (1B) in Amendment 28. By requiring senior civil servant sign-off for every use of the powers in Part 1, the noble Baroness seeks to set the bar for internal authorisation too high. Currently, the PSFA’s enforcement unit is relatively small—I love using the word “relatively”; it is not large—so the number of information notices envisaged in a year, for example, could all be reviewed by a senior civil servant. However, we are making this legislation to last decades, and its operation cannot be contingent on keeping our capacity to pursue public sector fraudsters small. At any scale, requiring excessive civil servant grading in legislation is a strict operational limitation and unnecessarily expensive. That is why those who use these powers successfully elsewhere in government, such as HMRC, do not have these requirements in either their legislation or their practice. It is not the grade that matters; it is skills, experience and professionalism. Authorised investigators and authorised officers in the PSFA will all be members of the Government Counter Fraud Profession. They will undergo bespoke training, on top of the previous knowledge, skills and experience they bring to the role. Current members of the PSFA’s enforcement unit bring a wealth of experience with them. They include former police officers, customs officers and other civil servants who have worked in investigatory roles across a number of departments. Noble Lords have been clear in this debate that they are particularly concerned about the use of PACE powers. Let me remind your Lordships’ House that it is the courts that will authorise any application that the PSFA makes under PACE. No civil servant—of any grade—nor any Minister can authorise a search warrant or a production order under PACE. Only the courts can authorise such actions, each and every time we seek to use them. That means that the PSFA must be able to demonstrate, to the court’s satisfaction, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence of fraud has been committed against a public authority and, as set out in PACE, reasonable grounds to believe that the material sought is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation—I repeat: it must be of substantial value. This means that the subject of an application has the protection of a court’s scrutiny before authorised investigators can execute a warrant or production order. Moreover, the powers in the Bill are subject to review by an independent person, as specified under Clause 65. I have committed to ensure that the independent person will be passed all the concerns raised by parliamentarians, including those we have heard today. The PSFA will be subject to inspections by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Inspection reports will be made publicly available and will be laid before Parliament. Finally, I turn to the question of maintaining a register that has to be laid before Parliament. We will of course keep meticulous records of how and when powers are used; that would be a bare minimum for good investigatory practice. Those records will be made available to the independent reviewer, who will report on the use of the powers to Parliament, ensuring democratic oversight. However, laying this register before Parliament carries significant risks; it may compromise ongoing cases and expose the identities of investigators to dangerous individuals, jeopardising their safety and the integrity of the justice system. We must remember that we are talking about people who undertake criminal activity—online in some cases—so publishing the names of the investigating officers could make them vulnerable. On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the appalling Horizon scandal, I want to take this opportunity to reassure and remind noble Lords that the scandal was based on private prosecutions that the PSFA will not undertake. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns and have set out how Ministers will act in an effort to assuage them, but the amendment cannot stand. It would allow dishonest Ministers to block politically inconvenient investigations, it would make counter-fraud enforcement at any scale impossible, and it would expose the names of officials to the fraudsters they are investigating. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.