Conclusion 4

Government has often failed to implement basic counter-fraud measures into its new initiatives. Government’s COVID-19 response highlighted the importance of designing counter-fraud measures, including controls, reporting and recovery, into new initiatives at an early stage of the policy cycle. Government could have maintained several basic standards of public accountability, even at the height of the COVID-19 emergency: more transparency; better management of conflicts of interest; promptness in addressing known fraud risks; and timely financial reporting. Some lessons learnt have already been put into practice, for example, in the case of government’s energy schemes where customers received discounted bills from the suppliers rather than direct cash payments from government. Government’s introduction of the Initial Fraud Impact Assessments (IFIAs) is a welcome development that will help public bodies address known vulnerabilities sooner. HM Treasury intends to embed the IFIAs into its spending approval processes. It has trained 700 of its staff on matters relating to fraud. Tackling fraud and corruption against government 7 Recommendation 4: HM Treasury should: a) confirm, in its Treasury Minute response, how it plans to embed Initial Fraud Impact Assessments (IFIAs) within its formal departmental spending approval processes; and the consequences for public bodies if they do not meet its expectations. b) work with departments, as part of its existing work to share best practice with departments, to help them use IFIAs to inform Accounting Officer Assessments and to ensure that a summary of the IFIAs, where they flag significant risks, is included in the published summary Accounting Officer Assessments sent to the Committee.