Recommendation 11

HM Treasury told us that to improve government’s fraud measurement capability, the number of fraud measurement experts will be doubling from 99 to about 180 across government.31 PSFA told us that it would not advocate departments to conduct fraud measurement exercises in all the areas where there are currently gaps because that would be too expensive and complicated.32 For example, DWP and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) spend £22 million each year on measuring fraud and error in the welfare and tax systems.33 PSFA told us that it will mainly focus its efforts on fraud risk assessments and outcomes from counter-fraud work to prevent and detect fraud.34 We asked PSFA about the conflation of fraud and error, and what plans, if any, it had to separate them as they are different concepts with different public perceptions. PSFA explained that differentiating between fraud and error requires an assessment of intent, which is not always practical to undertake in large scale fraud measurement exercises. It told us that when public bodies have “established vulnerabilities, the response that we may use would not look just at error or fraud” because both often require the same preventive approach.35 Professionalisation of government’s counter-fraud workforce