Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 22
22
Accepted
Formal fraud enforcement roles for SLC and OfS are lacking and need clarification.
Conclusion
The C&AG’s report noted that GIAA concluded that neither SLC nor OfS have a formal fraud enforcement role and highlighted the challenges in gaining assurance over the legitimacy of funding applications.57 DfE told us that it is looking at formal roles and responsibilities, including whether aspects needed to be strengthened or where it would be good to make action easier to take. DfE told us that, for individual-level fraud SLC has adequate powers to stop and recover payments, and good information sharing arrangements. DfE said it is more concerned about misuse of student funding, where the issue and the framework are not as clear-cut. It recognised that there are places where responsibilities and obligations could be clearer.58
Government Response Summary
The department has agreed a joint Incident Response plan between DfE, OfS and SLC for responding to cases where there is a potential risk to public funding which sets out the roles and responsibilities of each organisation.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 5.2 As noted in the response to recommendation 4 above, the department has agreed a joint Incident Response plan between DfE, OfS and SLC for responding to cases where there is a potential risk to public funding. This sets out the roles and responsibilities of each organisation in identifying and addressing providers of concern.