Agenda item

To consider a report of the Assistant Executive Director (Finance).

Consideration was given to a report of the Assistant Executive Director (Finance) and Head of Risk Management and Audit Services, which advised Members of the report produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Counter Fraud Centre – Fraud and Corruption Tracker 2016.

It was reported that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Counter Fraud Centre was launched in July 2014 and led and coordinated the fight against fraud and corruption across public services by providing a one-stop-shop for thought leadership, counter fraud tools, resources and training.  An annual survey was carried out across a host of public sector organisations, including local authorities, police and crime commissioners, transport authorities, fire and rescue authorities, waste authorities and public agencies.

The report detailed the nationwide results of the 2015/16 survey.  Details of the type of fraud along with the number of cases, values and percentage of the total were provided.  For Tameside the number of frauds dealt with was low and because of the nature of investigations and the definition of “Detected Fraud” very little was reported in the survey.  Although the survey did not capture emerging trends Procurement Fraud, Right to Buy Fraud and Business Rates Fraud was increasing.  Personal Budgets and Direct Payment frauds decreased in 2015/16 compared to 2014/15 results and respondents identified Council Tax; Housing; Procurement; Adult Social Care; and Housing Benefit as the highest risk areas for their organisations.

As a result of the survey the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy had made the following recommendations:-

·                Public sector organisations should carry out fraud assessments regularly and have access to appropriately qualified counter fraud resources to help mitigate the risks and effectively counter any fraud activity.

·                All organisations should undertake an assessment of their current counter fraud arrangements.

·                In line with the Fighting Fraud and Corruption Locally Board suggestion, local authorities should examine and devise a standard and common methodology for measuring fraud and corruption.  Once it has been agreed, local authorities should use the measure to estimate levels of fraud and corruption.

·                It is as important to prevent fraud that has no direct financial interest, such as data manipulation and recruitment, as it is high value fraud.

·                Organisations should develop joint working arrangements where they can with other counter fraud professionals and organisations.

·                Public bodies should continue to raise fraud awareness in the procurement process, not only in the tendering process but also in the contract monitoring element.

·                Authorities should ensure that anti-fraud measures within their own insurance claims processes are fit for purpose and that there is a clear route for investigations into alleged frauds to be undertaken.

Members requested a comparison to neighbouring authorities.  They were advised that a benchmarking request would be made at a future Greater Manchester Audit Group and reported back to the Panel.  Panel Members asked how much of the fraud could be recovered.  They were advised that £300,000 Council Tax fraud would be recovered via adjustments to the billing process, £102,000 relating to procurement was in the process of being recovered through Proceeds of Crime hearing, £25,000 Children’s Social Care had been invoiced and £116,000 Adult Social Care would be dependent upon individual’s assets.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.