Covid Fraud

My Lords, on 23 June, I laid the Government’s response to the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner’s report before this House setting out our plan to pursue those who defrauded the state during a national emergency, to put money stolen by fraudsters back into the public services and to tighten our counter-fraud controls to make sure that this scale of fraud can never happen again.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but does he not think it strange that Peter Murrell is in jail for embezzlement of £400,000 whereas not one person responsible for £10 billion of fraud has been charged, let alone convicted? Will the Government speed up their action to use legal methods against these people and recover the money, which, I am sure my noble friend will agree, will help balance his books?

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question and his continued determination to see justice in this matter, which I share. Covid fraud and corruption is an appalling financial scandal that has cost UK taxpayers dearly. I thank the commissioner, Tom Hayhoe, for his tireless efforts to chase down fraud so that public money can be used as intended on public services such as hospitals and schools, as my noble friend said. The Government will continue relentlessly to pursue Covid fraud to retrieve taxpayers’ money, to hold those responsible to account and to ensure that such failures can never be repeated. In his report, the commissioner made 22 separate recommendations. The Government have fully accepted 18 and partially accepted the remaining four. The Treasury will now establish a Minister-chaired scrutiny panel to review the implementation of the recommendations every six months for at least the next two years.

My Lords, fraud during Covid—heinous though it was—was carried out mainly by individuals and individual firms. Do the Government accept that, with AI, the character of fraud has now evolved into highly co-ordinated operating systems falsifying identity, behaviour and documentation, and it escapes detection by using digital money—primarily stablecoin and primarily among that tether? Work by Juniper Research shows that in 2025, tech platforms earned £430 million from scam ads in the UK alone. Will the Government require the tech platforms to close down these crimes?

While I absolutely accept what the noble Baroness says about the evolving nature of fraud, I am not sure that I fully accept it is becoming as overwhelming as she says. I understand that the FCA is engaged in cracking down on exactly the type of practice she outlines, and we fully support its actions to do so.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a previous small business owner. While greater transparency for regulators is clearly desirable, can the Minister confirm that the Government have listened to concerns from small businesses about making commercially sensitive profit and loss accounts publicly available? Can he also explain how the balance has been struck between improving fraud detection and protecting legitimate commercial confidentiality?

I thank my noble friend for his question, and I agree with the underlying point he makes. In his report, the commissioner recommends that small companies and micro-entities be required to file profit and loss accounts with Companies House under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. I said before that the Government have only partially accepted four of his recommendations, and this is one of them. While small businesses and micro-entities will be required to file profit and loss statements, as announced in June 2026, this requirement will come into effect in April 2028—one year later than initially anticipated—to give companies and businesses time to prepare. Small companies and micro-entities will have the option to opt out of publishing their profit and loss information on the public companies register. These changes reflect the Government’s consideration of concerns raised by stakeholders following the June announcement. The opt-out option addresses legitimate concerns about the commercial sensitivity of profit and loss information for smaller companies. Publishing this data on a public register carries privacy and competitive risks that are disproportionate for businesses of this size.

My Lords, the company owned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, owes the taxpayer £120 million. People who defraud the benefit system by £100 or £200 end up in jail; why is she not in jail? Why do the Opposition not say anything about this type of fraud, which brings disgrace on this House?

The Government have been clear that we expect robust action to be taken to protect the taxpayer, and we have fully supported the appropriate legal and insolvency processes being followed. As I understand it, PPE Medpro Ltd is now in liquidation, and matters related to the recovery of funds are therefore for the liquidators to pursue in line with their statutory duties. Any recoveries that can be made will be determined through those independent processes. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on those proceedings.

My Lords, one of the problems with the commissioner’s report on Covid fraud is that it pays little attention to the role of consultants in devising various schemes. For example, the furlough support scheme did not ask companies to provide the national insurance numbers of employees; it was, therefore, open to fraud. Companies seeking loans were not required to say when they were formed and what their HMRC reference number was; again, it was open to fraud. Are the Government still using the same consultants? Have they taken any action to ensure that those consultants pay the price for the poor design of various schemes?

I am afraid I do not know whether we are still using the same consultants; I am more than happy to check for the noble Lord.

My Lords, I think we need to stand back and take a broad view of the problems. We all know that Covid was a challenge right across government and that fraud was an issue. However, the important thing is to do better next time, which is why we set up the Public Sector Fraud Authority in 2022 and introduced the use of AI into fraud detection, which helped with some of the sort of problems that have been raised. Given the doubt expressed in parts of the report, is the Minister confident that the Government of the day will, in practice, do significantly better next time? I am looking for a commitment here.

I can fully understand the noble Baroness’s desire to stand back from this. On entering government, this Government found that £674 million of contracts were in dispute. However, we also inherited a recommendation from the previous Government that any attempt to reclaim that money should be abandoned. The commissioner’s report set out that £10.9 billion was lost to fraud and error from Covid spending. Failed pandemic-era PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer £1.4 billion and over £1.9 billion of bounce-back loans have been flagged as suspected fraud to the British Business Bank. The commissioner also found that the previous Government’s over-ordering of PPE and delays in quality-checking meant that £762 million is unlikely to ever be recovered, with substandard PPE gowns, masks and visors remaining uninspected for up to two years, preventing recovery of public money. Covid fraud and corruption is an appalling financial scandal which has cost UK taxpayers dearly. The noble Baroness asks for a commitment that we will do better next time; I think we could hardly do any worse.

My Lords, can the Minister say how much of the billions of pounds of public money which was wasted due to fraud and corruption in relation to Covid has now been recovered?

As I said in my previous answer, the estimated level of fraud and error stands at £10.9 billion. Some £1.6 billion has so far been recovered and a further £1.5 billion is in the act of being repaid. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act has extended the limitation period for Covid cases by a further six years, giving us longer to recover the outstanding amounts.

Does my noble friend not find it somewhat surprising that no Back-Bench Member of the Opposition thought it worth while intervening on a matter which affects one of their own?

Obviously, whether they choose to intervene or not is a matter for them.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister find slightly odd the intervention from the Opposition Front Bench? Surely if we are to send a message for future contracts, dealing with fraud in previous contracts is essential, otherwise people will think they can get away with it. Why does he think that the Opposition spokesperson was so keen to brush this under the carpet?

I completely agree with my noble friend. It is vital that we deal with past instances of fraud. As he said, that must act as a deterrent to future acts of fraud. We will continue to pursue these fraudsters and ensure that we get as much money back as we possibly can.