“(1) A person who—

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.”—

Brought up, and read the First time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (Dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

‘(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’

(3) In section 112 (False representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

‘(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’”.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 seeks to make it a specific offence to commit, assist or encourage others to commit fraud against a public authority. Someone who commits such an offence would be liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.

The offence of fraud against a public authority in the Bill is a civil offence. The Government argue that civil penalties offer an alternative to prosecution and help to mitigate the burden on the criminal justice system by offering alternative routes for the public sector to manage fraud cases. The Bill introduces a framework of civil penalties for fraud that the Minister can impose, including on behalf of other Government Departments, serving as an important deterrent against fraud in the public sector. We think it is an anomaly for public sector fraud to be a civil offence while benefits fraud is a criminal offence. Will the Minister explain why one type of fraud is seen as less serious than the other?

New clause 15 aims to target those on social media, particularly but not exclusively TikTok and YouTube, who post videos showing people how they might be able to make fraudulent benefit claims. That includes, for example, how to fill out a form to claim the personal independence payment, which does not require medical evidence but does need a self-assessment form, regardless of an individual’s actual symptoms.

As Professor Button said in evidence:

“The other thing is that social media and different types of forums provide opportunities for people to discuss how to engage in dishonest behaviour. I am doing some research at the moment about online refund fraud. We have been going into forums where a wide range of individuals discuss how to defraud retailers and get refunds for stuff that they have bought online. I strongly suspect that that kind of thing is probably also going on for benefits fraud. All of those factors are making it much easier, so I think there is a much more significant challenge for not just the public sector, but private sector organisations in dealing with fraud because of that.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 11, Q11.]

He means, by that, because of the online encouragement to commit fraud.

More than 3,000 individuals are signed off work every day. Advice provided by so-called “sickfluencers” includes using specific buzzwords in applications and providing template claims and guidance on passing questions at the interview stage, to fraudulently inflate the value of claims. As we know and have heard many times in Committee, benefit fraud accounts for almost £7.4 billion. It is in that context that the sickness benefits bill is expected to rise by over 50% to more than £100 billion by 2029-30—one and a half times the defence budget.

Clamping down on fraud and those who enable it should be a priority for the Government. I recognise that the Bill has gone a long way to doing that. We just think there is more that we could do. The claimant should clearly be penalised for knowingly making a false claim, but we believe that so too should the person actively encouraging people to defraud the taxpayer and providing information to enable them to do so successfully.

We do not want to target people who are providing genuine advice and guidance to people about how the welfare system and other public authorities work—that is incredibly important—but that is very different from providing assistance and encouragement to commit fraud, which is not acceptable. That should be reflected in the Bill. If these videos are not properly tackled, they become more normalised and people online may not even realise that what they are doing is fraud and illegal. That point also came up in oral evidence.

The new clause also fits in with other aspects of the Government’s work surrounding online safety, ensuring that young people, in particular, are not taken advantage of. It would send a clear message that encouraging fraud online is unacceptable and that there are clear consequences for those who do so.

Should the Government choose not to support the new clause, I would be interested to know why. If they accept it, that is fantastic. If they cannot support it today, will the Minister take the idea away and consider how to introduce an amendment at a later stage to protect against the sickfluencer trend and make sure that those who help others to commit benefit fraud are held to account?

Some might argue in opposition that existing legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Fraud Act 2006, are useful enough to cover these areas. However, as we heard from Professor Button during the witness session, whether we need to go further is an open question. He said:

“do we need to create a new, specific offence of, say, promoting social security fraud online?...The key thing is more enforcement, and disrupting forums where that kind of discussion is taking place.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 14, Q16.]

We believe that the new clauses directly support that point as they would make it easier to prosecute those who encourage fraud, providing clear legal grounds for enforcement and disruption.

I have heard some opposition to these measures arguing that it could be a challenge to determine those who are deliberately encouraging fraud and those who are merely discussing how to support vulnerable individuals. I touched on that point earlier. All that would be needed is a structured investigative approach—much like we have seen throughout the Bill—that looks specifically at the content. I believe that it would be easy to categorise between what are obviously step-by-step guides posted on forums that are intended to encourage people to commit this fraud, and, for example, the work of Citizens Advice, which we all know provides an invaluable service to the most vulnerable in society. I do not believe that it would be hard to work out which are legitimate organisations, and in doing so, it would be pretty easy to find out who is simply seeking to defraud the system by encouraging others to do so.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for South West Devon in tabling the new clause—that is, to take fraud against the public sector seriously—but the Government plan to resist it, because we believe that the proposals are already covered and that it could lead to unintended consequences that do the opposite of what she wants.

As the hon. Member said, new clause 2 would create a new offence of fraud against a public authority. We believe that that could have a detrimental effect and is unnecessary, because fraud is already an offence, and this is clearly defined in clause 70 as offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. The Bill uses those offences—they do not need to be written into it to have effect—and we have given assurances on that during a previous debate.

Consequently, there does not need to be a specific fraud offence for public authorities. Assisting and encouraging fraud against a public authority, as is mentioned in the new clause, is already an offence. The offences of “encouraging or assisting”, as set out in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, apply to fraud offences as they do to other crimes. Again, that does not need to be written into the Bill to have effect.

The Public Sector Fraud Authority will be able to investigate cases in which it appears that someone has encouraged someone else to commit fraud. If we discover encouragement, that would likely form part of the PSFA’s investigation into a fraud case, and the Crown Prosecution Service could pursue that offence using the evidence collected. Whether action can be taken will depend on the facts of the case, the evidence available and whether the necessary standard of proof can be met.

Crucially, new clause 2 would reduce the maximum sentence available for Fraud Act and conspiracy offences from 10 years to seven years, for fraud against public authorities only.

I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?

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.

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.

We already have effective fraud legislation. The issue that the Bill seeks to address is that we do not currently have the resources or the powers to properly investigate that or to recover money. We believe that the suggestions that are being made would have the unintended consequences of reducing the seriousness of the offence, in the way that I have set out. The proposals also omit the option available in the Fraud Act offences and the common law conspiracy offence for the Crown court to impose an unlimited fine instead of, or as well as, a term of imprisonment. Again, that weakens the response. That is contrary to the Government’s intention with the Bill that strong action should be taken against public sector fraud.

New clause 15 seeks to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud by adding new subsections to sections 111A and 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Sections 111A and 112 set out two specific offences related to benefit fraud. Although the intention behind the new clause is commendable, I believe that it is not needed for several reasons, which are similar to those I have set out on new clause 2.

First, the existing legal framework already provides sufficient measures to tackle fraud of this nature. The Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 make it a criminal offence to encourage or assist any other offence, including when it relates to fraud. There are also existing laws that serve a similar purpose for Scotland. Those existing laws are robust and comprehensive, ensuring that individuals who provide guidance on how to commit fraud, or encourage others to do so, can be prosecuted effectively. Introducing additional subsections to the 1992 Act would therefore be redundant and unnecessary.

Secondly, the new clause could potentially complicate the legal landscape. Adding new subsections to the 1992 Act risks creating overlapping and conflicting provisions that could lead to confusion and inefficiency in enforcement. It is essential to maintain clarity and coherence in our legal system to ensure that justice is served effectively. Moreover, the new clause would mean that those convicted of a new offence would face a less punitive sentence than they would under existing laws. For example, under new clause 15, a conviction related to section 112 would carry a maximum period of custody of three months, compared with a maximum of 10 years under the existing Fraud Act. As a result, and this is similar to what I set out on new clause 2, rather than strengthening our position to respond to such types of fraud, new clause 15 could result in a weakened response.

Although new clauses 2 and 15 are well intended, neither new clause is needed as the existing legal framework already provides sufficient measures to address this issue, and introducing additional subsections would only complicate the legal landscape. However, I very much heard the points about the research being done by the hon. Member for South West Devon and the importance of tackling those who set up sites to try to defraud the public sector. I am more than happy to have a further meeting about how we can take action on that. We believe that we can do that using the existing powers, but we would welcome further discussion. The PSFA and DWP will be concentrating on the provisions in the Bill that are intended to effectively address and combat fraud through them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for South West Devon to withdraw the motion.

I have heard everything that the Minister has said. However, we will still press new clauses 2 and 15 to a vote.

On a point of order, Mr Western. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair; can I ask you a procedure question before we go any further? We have had the presentation of the new clauses, but we have not had any declarations of interest. Given that there are some notable Conservative party donors facing potential fraud charges under covid issues, I just wonder whether that should have been declared before we got to the change in how people in those situations might be punished.

I understand, although I was not present at the time, that all the declarations were made at the time of evidence being presented to the Committee. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order.

I would like to understand how the Opposition Front-Bench team consider new clause 15 to make any provision that is not already in the Fraud Act 2006 or the Serious Crime Act 2007, which already make it an offence to encourage or assist an offence including fraud. I stress that because I am particularly concerned about sickfluencers, to whom the hon. Lady referred, but I fail to see how new clause 15 offers any provision not contained in that legislation already. It does not mention at any point that it would extend powers to what happens online, presumably because—or I can say actually because—online sickfluencers would already be covered by that legislation. I understand the intent. We have a problem with sickfluencers that we need to deal with, but I would be incredibly appreciative to understand how the new clause offers anything that is not already in that legislation.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I have obviously heard what both Ministers have said in response. We are still keen from a principle perspective to push the new clause to a vote because we think more needs to be done to outline specifically what we are doing to tackle the online aspect. I hear what the Minister is saying but, in this particular instance, we would like to take it further.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—