| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly paying tribute to the measures that we introduced to give sticks and carrots to local authorities to make them do thatwork, after years in which many--particularly Labour-controlled--local authorities failed to do it. I am delighted that, in the past 18 months, his local authority has responded to our incentives.
Mr. Bradley: What most pleases me is the praise that the Secretary of State has given to Manchester city council for the work that it has undertaken. It has employed five extra staff and, against a target of£2 million in the first year, it has achieved savings of£3 million. Unfortunately, as a result of that success, the Government have increased its target by 50 per cent., to £3 million, and increased the subsidy pay-back to the authority from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. Surely the Government should be more generous in ensuring that the local authority can keep more of the money that it has so successfully targeted with its fraud measures. I ask the Minister to reconsider the current subsidy arrangements.
We have heard in this debate of the excellent initiatives undertaken by the Labour party, despite the Government's reluctance over the years to spearhead a campaign to combat fraud wherever it appeared. We clearly welcome the Government's belated initiatives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald):
We have had a useful and generally constructive debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for Westbury (Mr. Faber), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for their contributions, but I must also pay tribute to the Opposition Members for what they brought to the debate.
I regret that some Opposition Members felt obliged to cavil at the Government's achievements in fighting fraud. We acted on benefit fraud long before the Opposition even discovered the issue. When I heard the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) talking about 13 years of inaction and how he and his colleagues had spearheaded the campaign against fraud, I thought back to his remarks in July 1993 when he said that the extent of fraud in the system was overstated and that we should not get things out of proportion. He described the problem at that stage as a small one.
Mr. Bradley:
Does the Minister support the view of the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)? Referring to my speech on that occasion, he said:
Mr. Heald:
I think that my hon. Friend was being rather kind because it was a Friday; he is certainly a fair man. As I shall make clear in a moment, the hon. Gentleman made a number of suggestions, all of which were wrong and have subsequently been disproved by events, so I shall not take any advice from him on the subject.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a number of issues that I shall deal with immediately. There is no mystery about the targets. The figure for the 1998-99 target is £2.5 billion. That is
made up of all the various forms of fraud activity relating to the Benefits Agency in that one year. It also includes the work of the Employment Service which, of course, will by then have been amalgamated with that of the Benefits Agency, and that of local authorities.
The other figure of £2.5 billion that has been mentioned is the spend-to-save figure. The Government's proposals--the expenditure of £103 million this year on the security and control programme and of further sums over a future three-year period--will produce savings of £2.5 billion.If the hon. Gentleman requires further information, I shall be happy to write to him with more details.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also spoke about the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, suggesting that he was in some way critical of the Government's work on benefit fraud. That is far from being the case--the Comptroller and Auditor General commended the Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their energetic approach to tackling benefit fraud. Although he was saying, as he has for many years, that he wished to qualify the accounts because there was a high level of fraud, and although he recognised that the benefit review had established the true level of fraud, there is no question but that he was complimenting the Department on its work.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about means testing.
Mr. Frank Field:
If the Comptroller and Auditor General is so pleased, does the Minister think that he will sign the accounts next year?
Mr. Heald:
I think that I covered that point. Obviously, where there is a high level of benefit fraud, it is extremely difficult for him to do so. The research that the Department has undertaken to establish the level of fraud is the basis on which that decision will be made.
It is all very well and good for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to criticise the increase in means testing and say that he feels that it increases the scope of fraud, but the corollary of that, if he means it, is that he is prepared to change the system to less means testing, and the disadvantages that that would bring. That point was put to him time and again and he was not prepared to make such a commitment. The Labour party has proposed a guaranteed minimum pension that, far from cutting means testing, would involve means testing everybody at state pension age. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that will help, I suggest that he is wrong.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury talked about what he described as self-assessment. It is true that there is an element of self-assessment in disability benefits where claimants describe their conditions on the forms that they fill in. Such self-assessment is well established. The hon. Gentleman is confusing self-assessment with the tightening up and simplifying of procedures that require benefit claimants to provide more information in documents, and so on, which is needed to establish and determine claims. I would not describe that as self-assessment, but if the hon. Gentleman does I would plead guilty. We ought to be looking at measures that put more of the onus on the individual in certain cases in order to simplify the system.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and a number of other hon. Members asked when we will have a uniform computer system, applying to all benefits, which will give ready access to personal details of and information about each claimant. That is being developed. It is part of the technology that underlies the benefit payment card and the private finance initiative to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Such a system will become available as we roll out the use of the benefit payment card, which the hon. Gentleman also criticised.
That PFI is on target. I cannot give the House all the details of it today, because the procurement process is still in hand. However, minimum standards and levels of security have been laid down by the Government and we are looking for proposals from the suppliers that meet that criteria. The suppliers will not be determining how the system works; they will be providing us with proposals so that we can determine the best way forward.
It is important to ensure that when the benefit payment card is introduced, elderly people find it accessible and easy to use. Sub-postmasters and those involved with the Post Office are determined to ensure that that happens. From speaking to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, I know that that is its view. We are also having discussions with groups that represent the elderly to ensure that the card is introduced in a form that is acceptable to the elderly, that they are given the necessary information and that the card is effective.
"The Opposition spokesman has been equally determined to show that the Labour party is as rigorous about fraud and abuse asit is about ensuring that everyone gets his just deserts."--[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1250.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |