Recommendation 27

The Cabinet Office told us that in emergency situations like the pandemic response it is important to get support out to communities and individuals who need it, and how you balance accessibility and control is one of the areas counter-fraud professionals and other professionals in policy, finance and risk management all look at.78 We previously concluded that BEIS’ focus on speed of delivery for the Bounce Back Loan Scheme has exposed the taxpayer to potentially huge losses.79 BEIS told us this decision was a “difficult trade off”.80 In written evidence Cifas told us that even allowing for time pressures when the support schemes were first introduced, administering public sector bodies have in many instances continued to receive minimal consultation on preventing during subsequent rounds of funding.81 We recently heard from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on its efforts to prevent fraud within the Culture Recovery Fund. DCMS attributed the Fund’s low level of fraud to its upfront due diligence process, though recognised this increased the time it took to distribute funding to recipients.82 70 C&AG’s Guide, page 7 71 Q 33 72 C&AG’s Guide page 8 73 Q 50 74 Q 52 75 Q 40 76 Q 67 77 Q 66 78 Q 68 79 Committee of Public Accounts, Covid-19: Bounce Back Loan Scheme, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2019–21, HC 687, 16 December 2020 80 Q 52 81 Cifas submission page 2 82 Oral evidence, COVID-19: Culture Recovery Fund, HC 1291, 26 April 2021, Q 76 18 Fraud and Error