Agenda item

To consider the six monthly update from the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit. 

23.1          The report of the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service, circulated at Pages No. 21-26, provided an update on the work of the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit.  Members were asked to consider the report.

23.2          The Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service drew attention to Pages No. 23, Paragraph 2.2 of the report, in relation to the Cabinet Office’s National Fraud Initiative which was a data matching exercise to help prevent and detect fraud nationwide.  She was pleased to advise that, since the publication of the Committee report, revenue from referring accounts to the Revenues department had increased to £85,747 and an additional housing application had been removed from the list bringing the total to 12.  Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the report demonstrated that the enforcement arm of the Unit had assisted Planning and Housing with successful prosecutions.  Training would shortly be taking place for Enforcement Officers on Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the update to the RIPA Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Source Policy, which the Committee had been made aware of earlier in the year, with two sessions planned at the end of November and start of December.  The Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that, following the work on COVID grants, counter fraud work was becoming an area of interest for central government.  A strategic group had been set up locally with Trading Standards and the Police looking at victim support and how to raise awareness to disrupt and tackle scams to prevent people falling victim.

23.3          A Member drew attention to Paragraph 2.1 of the report and noted that almost £300,000 remained outstanding in relation to Business Grant Schemes which she felt was quite a lot of money.  In response, the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that many businesses were suffering after the pandemic and as a result of the current cost of living crisis so Officers were mindful that money could not all be repaid in one go.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that, whilst £300,000 looked a lot on its own, it was only 1% of the £30m which had been paid out and this position was much better than a number of other authorities.  The work the team had done to put controls in place early in the process, when under extreme pressure to pay out as quickly as possible, had been essential in securing value for money and limiting fraud within the grants.  The Member accepted the point but raised concern that payments had been made to businesses that were not trading or were empty.  In response, the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that these were examples of the fraud people had been committing but it would not necessarily have been known that these were fraudulent claims at the time of the application.  Officers were doing their best to recover the outstanding monies but being mindful that businesses were struggling to stay afloat. 

23.4          Another Member asked what lessons had been learnt as, whilst she accepted what had been said by Officers, it was still a lot of money.  The Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that, in her experience of the Councils she worked for, they had done a tremendously good job when compared to the amount of fraud and error in the furlough scheme, or other schemes administered outside of local government which used local knowledge to ensure that payments were made correctly.  The main lesson learnt was the benefit of enlisting the Internal Audit, Counter Fraud and Finance teams from the outset, prior to paying any money. There had been immense pressure to pay grants quickly and multiple schemes to understand so she hoped it was a one-off situation which would not be repeated.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management felt that the biggest lessons learnt were for central government in terms of how to roll out schemes and the benefit of talking to local government to ensure the schemes were well designed and to deal with any obvious problems.  The Member recognised a lot of excellent work was going on and she asked if the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit made any profit.  In response, the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that Tewkesbury Borough Council was one of five partner bodies within the Unit - any ‘profit’ was taken off the overall cost of the Unit to keep partnership costs to a minimum.  A report was provided around loss avoidance, recovered monies etc. to demonstrate that the Unit was value for money.  A Member asked if it was possible to have a statement showing how much the Unit cost Tewkesbury Borough Council and how much money was saved and the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service undertook to provide this.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that Paragraph 2.2. of the report gave figures on increased revenue and loss avoidance and, to put this into perspective, the service cost the Council £60,000 per year which he considered to be excellent value for money in terms of the proactive work, and the strategy and policy work, which was done by the Unit to support the authority.  In terms of the business support schemes, a Member expressed the view that speed had been so important as, if the schemes had not rolled out quickly, many businesses within the local economy would no longer exist.  He felt that without a deterrent there would be far more attempts at fraudulent claims across a range of services.  There was a small minority of people within every community that would look to abuse the system wherever possible and without structures such as the Unit in place, that would undoubtedly increase.

23.5          It was

RESOLVED           That the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit update be NOTED.