Issue - meetings
Standards Advisory Committee - Membership, Terms of Reference and Programme of Meetings 2012 -13
Meeting: 24/10/2013 - Standards Advisory Committee (Item 4)
4 Anti- Fraud and Corruption Strategy and Proactive Anti -Fraud Plan 2013-14 PDF 284 KB
To note the contents of the report.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Head of Audit and Risk Management presented the report on behalf of the Corporate Anti-Fraud Manager and highlighted the following:
- the work of the antifraud team was delivered through activities directed by the priorities of the Anti-Fraud strategy
- the antifraud plan sought to ensure that resources were adequately deployed and indicated where resources would be allocated
- anti-fraud work involved detection and prevention. The Council was looking to use prevention more effectively by publicising successful actions
- detection activities have been strengthened by the recruitment of additional staff in the Corporate Anti-Fraud Team
There was an extensive discussion of the anti-fraud work reported and, in response to Members’ questions, the following information was provided:
- re: comparative levels of preventative and reactive anti-fraud activities: - the Committee was advised that most activities were reactive but preventative work comprised 10-15% of the total. Since the enactment of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, it was a criminal offence to sublet social housing therefore the Council was able to prosecute any persons caught doing so and raise an order against profits made. This power was an effective deterrent
- Primary Care Trusts had been disbanded and could no longer participate in the Anti-Fraud Forum: - Members were advised that the Forum structure remained broad enabling maximum opportunities for sharing intelligence and for joint working
- all types of fraud whether commercial or domestic were investigated by the Council where such activity was discovered
- when investigating housing benefit fraud, data from the Electoral Register was used for data-matching
- re: levels of fraud indicated by data published at Appendix 2: - the Committee was informed that the data did not indicate total fraud but the Council’s response to the biggest fraud areas. On account of limited Council resources, antifraud work was targeted at high risk areas
- re: the effectiveness of Council's work in reducing Blue Badge parking fraud: - the Committee was informed that the Council's level of work and success rate was comparable to other local authorities. Additionally there was good data exchange between London authorities enabling Blue Badge parking fraud perpetrated in other boroughs by Tower Hamlets residents to be traced and vice- versa
- re: query on the number of days taken to investigate frauds reported in Appendix 2: - the Committee was informed that the data reported was an average number of days employed in the anti-fraud investigations stated in the report
- re: whether whistleblowing management referrals and proactive contingency was subject to Freedom of Information requests: - the Committee was informed that whistleblowers were protected once a referral was made. These referrals were one-off interventions and as such each was individually assessed and investigated
- re: whether the Council was adequately resourced to meet risks arising from greater local discretions enabled through recent legislation: - the Committee was advised that the resource that would be allocated was dependent on the level of risk created. Because of limited resources, the Council was required to decide where its money was best ... view the full minutes text for item 4