Asked by: Claire Young (Liberal Democrat - Thornbury and Yate)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what steps his Department is taking to help tackle the promotion of fraudulent energy saving products.
Answered by Martin McCluskey - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
We are tackling promotion of fraudulent energy saving products in homes retrofit through several steps.
Selection and installation of measures is overseen through expert certification processes and bodies. This is being enhanced though development of a robust model for future scheme delivery which will reduce fraud. This includes a simplified approach to scheme design and scoring of measures reducing opportunities for fraud and for gaming. We have ongoing investment in technology to prevent and detect fraud.
Retrofit delivered through local authorities and housing associations have support from delivery partners appointed to bring expertise in assurance and fraud prevention.
Asked by: Darren Paffey (Labour - Southampton Itchen)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many benefit overpayments his Department made in 2024; and what steps he is taking to reduce those payments.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
We have committed to significant fraud, error and debt measures at Autumn Budget 2024 and Spring Statement 2025, which the OBR estimated will deliver an additional £9.6bn savings over the next five years. The Autumn Budget 2024 package was the biggest ever announced to reduce welfare fraud, error, and debt. Building on our existing interventions (including investment in additional staff and preventative measures), we have brought forward new legislation this session through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (“PAFER Bill”). This Bill includes powers that will help DWP to identify incorrect payments and prevent the build-up of overpayments and debt accruing.
Fraud and error overpayments accounted for £9.5bn (3.3%) in 2024/25 compared to £9.7bn (3.6%) in 2023/24.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department has taken to protect consumers against fraudulent investment opportunities presented online through the use of deepfakes.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Under the Online Safety Act, online platforms are required to take proactive measures to stop fraudulent content appearing on their platforms. This includes fraudulent investments using deepfakes.
The government’s ‘Stop! Think Fraud’ campaign provides practical information on how to spot fake online adverts, including deepfake celebrity investment endorsements, and advice on how to report these scams if individuals fall victim.
The Government will shortly publish a new Fraud Strategy, as set out in our manifesto, which will set out how we will work with law enforcement, industry and others to go further in protecting the public from all fraud, including AI enabled fraud.
Asked by: Claire Hazelgrove (Labour - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of whether company directors are able to disguise personal income as business revenue to reduce child support obligations under the Child Maintenance Service 2012 Scheme.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Where a paying parent is the Director of their limited liability company, they are legally an employee of that company for child maintenance purposes. They are also legally required to provide details of unearned income such as dividends in their Self-Assessment Tax Return.
Real time income information direct from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is key to the child maintenance calculation which also includes a wide range of income types, including income from property, savings and investments (including dividends) and other miscellaneous income. This makes it difficult for most parents to misstate their income.
People working in certain positions can influence how they are paid and the amount of pay they get. These people are known as ‘complex earners’ and include company directors who can affect their level of pay or dividends they receive.
Where it is reported there is additional unearned income that has not been captured in the maintenance calculation either parent can apply to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) for an ‘additional income variation.’
The CMS has robust processes in place to investigate any misrepresentation of income and where there is credible information that fraud has been committed, or incorrect income declared the case is referred to the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU). This specialist team request and validate information from financial institutions (such as banks, investment and mortgage companies) to check the accuracy of the information used in the maintenance calculation to ensure financial correctness and can make assessment changes if they discover undeclared income that is effectively being used as income.
Asked by: Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat - Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the potential lessons that could be learned from HMRC’s treatment of professional footballers affected by investment fraud for wider cases mis-selling of tax avoidance schemes.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
HMRC works closely with partners across the football sector to deliver educational messages to support players and their agents in getting things right first time.
HMRC recognises the damage caused to the tax system by those that promote tax avoidance schemes. It takes action to prevent that damage, for example by publishing details of schemes and promoters to help customers to steer clear of or otherwise exit such schemes.
The Government is determined to do more to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and recently consulted on a package of measures to strengthen HMRC’s powers to tackle them.
HMRC also recognises that dealing with an enquiry and a tax liability can be stressful. HMRC is committed to supporting taxpayers who need extra support and offer ‘Time to Pay’ instalment arrangements where appropriate.
Asked by: Darren Paffey (Labour - Southampton Itchen)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of (a) waiting times for (i) appeals and (ii) repayments and (b) other delays in HMRC processes on (A) investment in and (B) the growth of small businesses.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
HMRC recognises the importance of tax repayments in supporting business confidence and growth. While appeals and repayments are subject to necessary checks to mitigate fraud and error, HMRC continues to improve processing times through increased staffing and automation, and remains committed to balancing efficiency with robust compliance controls.
HMRC’s correspondence service standard is to respond to 80% of priority post within 15 working days.
Monthly performance against this standard is published at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmrc-monthly-performance-reports
HMRC’s online services include a ‘Where’s my reply’ tool which provides estimated response times. The tool is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-when-you-can-expect-a-reply-from-hmrc
HMRC is always looking at ways to improve customer experience. Their recently published transformation roadmap sets out how they will deliver improved services which will mean a better experience for taxpayers, agents, and businesses.
Asked by: Gregory Stafford (Conservative - Farnham and Bordon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the potential long-term fiscal merits of retaining the Bitcoins held by UK authorities in connection with investment fraud.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), which sets out the necessary steps for the management and realisation of assets, the seizure, recovery and management of Bitcoin assets is subject to consideration of independent law enforcement and the courts.
There are no current plans to amend the Act to divert seized coins to a centrally-held fund or reserve.
I am unable to comment on any ongoing civil recovery investigations.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many child benefit claims were cancelled because the claimant was found to be living abroad in each year since 2020.
Answered by James Murray - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
From administrative data, the number of Child Benefit awards terminated by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) through compliance activity per year, due to customers no longer meeting the Child Benefit residency criteria is provided below: ·
- 2020-21 = 113 awards
- 2021-22 = 269 awards
- 2022-23 = 762 awards
- 2023-24 = 1,030 awards
- 2024-25 = 3,017 awards
The increase in terminated awards over this period has resulted from incremental improvements in HMRC’s utilisation of available data sources. In 2024-25 a proof of concept used Home Office travel data as a risk indicator for when customers may no longer satisfy Child Benefit residence criteria. Following the success of this exercise, the government announced at Autumn Budget 24 investment in an additional 180 welfare counter fraud staff in HMRC to tackle fraud and error in Child Benefit. This is expected to save £350 million over the next five years.
Asked by: John Whittingdale (Conservative - Maldon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps she is taking to ensure that investors in 79th Group receive adequate compensation.
Answered by Emma Reynolds - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
As an important point of principle, the Government does not step in to pay compensation in respect of failed financial services firms that fall outside of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Doing so would create the wrong set of incentives for individuals and an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. The Government does not ordinarily step in to pay compensation to consumers in relation to allegations of fraud, investment losses, mis-selling or mis-buying of investments.
However, in some cases of fraud, individuals may be able to seek reimbursement from their bank. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is the independent regulator with responsibility for Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud reimbursement. The PSR’s mandatory reimbursement regime, for APP scams taking place over the Faster Payment system, came into force on 7 October 2024 and covers transactions occurring on or after that date. It requires payment service providers to reimburse victims of APP scam losses up to the value of £85,000. The PSR has committed to commission an independent post implementation review of its policy after 12 months of the policy being in force.
Transactions that occurred before 7 October 2024, may be governed by the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM), a voluntary code signed by the UK’s largest banks and building societies that came into force in May 2019. However, it is important to note that not all banks or building societies are party to the CRM code. The CRM code is overseen by the Lending Standards Board and more information can be found on their website.
Where a reimbursement claim is unsuccessful, victims may have access to recourse through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This includes fraud, providing the activity is within the FOS’s jurisdiction, which is set by the FCA. Any criminal investigation would be a matter for the police. Unfortunately, the Government is unable to intervene in individual cases, but I would encourage victims to continue to engage with their banks directly in order to seek a timely resolution to this matter.
However, it is important to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. HM Treasury is working with colleagues in the Home Office as they develop a new, expanded Fraud Strategy. This will be published in due course as part of the Government’s Plan for Change and in line with our manifesto commitments.
Asked by: John Whittingdale (Conservative - Maldon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of Financial Conduct Authority support for victims of financial fraud in the context of the insolvency of 79th Group.
Answered by Emma Reynolds - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
As an important point of principle, the Government does not step in to pay compensation in respect of failed financial services firms that fall outside of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Doing so would create the wrong set of incentives for individuals and an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. The Government does not ordinarily step in to pay compensation to consumers in relation to allegations of fraud, investment losses, mis-selling or mis-buying of investments.
However, in some cases of fraud, individuals may be able to seek reimbursement from their bank. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is the independent regulator with responsibility for Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud reimbursement. The PSR’s mandatory reimbursement regime, for APP scams taking place over the Faster Payment system, came into force on 7 October 2024 and covers transactions occurring on or after that date. It requires payment service providers to reimburse victims of APP scam losses up to the value of £85,000. The PSR has committed to commission an independent post implementation review of its policy after 12 months of the policy being in force.
Transactions that occurred before 7 October 2024, may be governed by the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM), a voluntary code signed by the UK’s largest banks and building societies that came into force in May 2019. However, it is important to note that not all banks or building societies are party to the CRM code. The CRM code is overseen by the Lending Standards Board and more information can be found on their website.
Where a reimbursement claim is unsuccessful, victims may have access to recourse through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This includes fraud, providing the activity is within the FOS’s jurisdiction, which is set by the FCA. Any criminal investigation would be a matter for the police. Unfortunately, the Government is unable to intervene in individual cases, but I would encourage victims to continue to engage with their banks directly in order to seek a timely resolution to this matter.
However, it is important to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. HM Treasury is working with colleagues in the Home Office as they develop a new, expanded Fraud Strategy. This will be published in due course as part of the Government’s Plan for Change and in line with our manifesto commitments.