| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.56 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen): As I seem to be the last line of defence on the Opposition Benches, I shall try to live up to the responsibility. I feel as though I am intruding on a meeting of a club of past and present members of the Social Security Select Committee, former Ministers and spokespersons. Despite the trepidation that I feel in front of all those experts, I shall do my best to acquit myself in presenting the Labour party's point of view.
Conservative Members try to impute a mindset to Labour Members. The Secretary of State tried to do it again in this debate with his soundbite that Labour is soft on fraud.I cannot put myself into a frame of mind to accept that charge or see any justification for it. As some hon. Members have said, people from my type of background most bitterly resent fraud. I do not therefore accept that Labour is soft on fraud. Nor do I accept Conservative Members' mindset that we are that way inclined.
I join my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in welcoming this opportunity to discuss the Government's first systematic attempt in 17 years to combat fraud. Points have been made about certain initiatives, but I have not heard any Conservative Member offer an exposition of the systematic attempt to sort out fraud, ascertain its nature and define the extent of the problem. We have always been opposed to social security fraud in all its forms because we believe that any Government have a duty to strike at that abuse wherever it is found.
The much-quoted, happy Select Committee on Social Security said:
I very strongly agree with that. As many hon. Members have said, every pound wasted on fraud is a pound less going to someone who genuinely needs it and is legally entitled to it. I have absolutely no time for people who defraud the public purse. In committing that crime, they ensure that a man, woman or child who could do with that money and support does not get it.
Starting with the Secretary of State, every Tory Member failed to mention the two sides of the coin, and I shall wait to see whether the Tories' last line of defence also fails to mention it. As well as their duty to stamp out fraud, there is a duty on the Government to ensure that all those who are legally entitled to benefits claim them: not one Tory Member has mentioned that.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman is right that the take-up of benefits has not been mentioned, but there is a good reason for that--the debate is not about the take-up of benefits. He is right that it is an important subject, but there have been some impressive campaigns recently--I say impressive because of their effect on the take-up of various benefits--on the subject. He is right that that effort should continue, but he should not criticise hon. Members for not mentioning something that is not the subject of the debate.
Mr. McAvoy:
The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not valid. He is trying to close debate and prevent hon. Members from mentioning the overall situation. Myhon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the two sides of the coin, and it is reasonable to expect at least some response from Tory Members to a point made by a Labour Front Bencher.
Perhaps the real reason why no Tory has mentioned the matter is that, by the Government's own estimates,£2 billion of social security benefits are not being claimed by those legally entitled to them. If the Government are as keen as Tory Members make out, why are they planning to abolish all the services that would encourage the take-up of that £2 billion of unclaimed benefits? There is a hidden agenda. Opposition Members--[Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip--I am looking ahead to the next few months. Tory Members have not mentioned the other side of the coin.
No firm estimate of the extent of social security fraud has been made, although claims have been made about possible savings from anti-fraud measures. I repeat that no Opposition Member wants to side with criminals, which is what benefit fraudsters are. Britain was the pioneer of social security after the war, and it is as necessary now as it was then. For the system to function effectively, however, it must be protected from corruption and abuse.
One of the great and sometimes endearing features of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)--to whom tribute has been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House--is that he thinks and says the unthinkable. That is to his credit, but we have not seen much of that attitude from Tories. A point of view expressed by my hon. Friend--a point that is appearing more and more in the policies of the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)--is that the welfare state was never intended to become a permanent way of life for its users. It was intended for emergency periods in people's lives and a safety net to help those who had fallen on hard times. It was intended to provide a guaranteed minimum standard of living for people in need until they were able to support themselves. The message that receiving social security is a right and not an act of charity has been put across successfully.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to the means testing system used in the 1920s and 1930s. My mother, father and grandparents were subjected to that system at that time and, although it may be dismissed lightly now, we should not forget such things. I remember hearing my parents' and grandparents' experiences of that system, and Tory Members should never forget that Opposition Members--the descendants of people who were means-tested--know how that system operated. Sometimes Tory Members seem keen to implement such a system again, although I exempt the hon. Member for Teignbridge from that.
If we are to have a cohesive society, social security must play a part, but it must be conveyed more and more that the right to social security is accompanied by a responsibility. The system cannot hope to function properly if it is used irresponsibly, and those who misuse it are robbing those in genuine need. Why have the Government not responded to the problem sooner? The House heard a detailed debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and Tory Members on the effect of means-testing benefits, and we need a separate debate on that subject.
As the percentage of means-tested benefits rises, the Government will have to accept that there will be suspicion among Opposition Members and throughout the country about their motives. If they want to extend means testing to different types of benefit and to maintain a socially cohesive society, there will have to be consultation between the Government and the Opposition. If there is a genuine desire for progress, there should be a consensus on the type of benefits to be means tested.If the Government merely impose the scheme, they will arouse suspicion. If they propose more intensive means testing, I will oppose it unless they give specific and justified reasons for doing so.
We must investigate cases of genuine need, although over-extending interrogation--as that is what investigation can amount to--might reintroduce the stigma that characterised means testing in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, the system is ineffective and inefficient as it encourages false claims.
The Secretary of State lauded the concept of home visits, but what he did not say--perhaps the Minister will do so--was that even if the number of annual home visits is increased by 1 million, it will still make a total of only
1.5 million visits, as opposed to 6.5 million in the year when the Tories came to power. If home visits are so good, why have they been reduced so drastically by the Government?
The Secretary of State's idea of hit-squads targeting certain areas and advertising that the DSS will be conducting a thorough investigation will, I hope, not mean harassment, and that proposal must be scrutinised and debated. I can think of several areas in my constituency that would appear to fit the Government's criteria for such a hit-squad. I shall consider the matter and conduct some research into it. I hope to hear some more information from the Minister on it. The idea strikes fear in my heart because it immediately sections off parts of our community and makes them targets. It also displays a mindset that particular areas and particular income groups will be targeted in that manner. It seems to be accepted by the Government that certain geographical areas in this country, by definition, contain people on social security benefit and consequently should be targeted.
Mr. Heald:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there was no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The spotlight campaigns will be focused on different areas; it has not been suggested that any specific type of area should be chosen. The evidence obtained through the benefit reviews shows that benefit fraud is widespread in different areas.
Mr. McAvoy:
That intervention hints at the sort of debate that I should like to see before there is general acceptance of the policy. I accept that the Minister is not trying to mislead, but how will the Department pick an area? Will the choice be based on geography or the number of claimants? The system that will need to be created to manage the targeting smacks of big brother, Stalinism and fascism--both sides of the spectrum.
I am not a social engineer or a great sociologist, but I have experience of my community and of life. If parts of a community are targeted--which clearly will happen--what effect will that have on social cohesiveness? I do not want to start sounding like a social worker or a community worker, but what does that do to the self-esteem of individuals in the community and the community itself? The Department will immediately divide and rule, and turn areas and people into outcasts.I should like to hear more from the Government about exactly how they will choose and manage the areas that are to be targeted. It is a horrible, horrifying idea that will lead us into trouble in future.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne(Mrs. Roe) for raising the subject of landlord fraud. We all know that local councils, especially in Scotland, face dreadful problems in terms of Government support for their reorganisation. I have read about what has happened in Haringey and heard, from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, about what can happen when a council investigates its own area and digs deep into the fraud carried out by landlords. If each council had a grant support settlement that enabled it to develop that aspect of its work, surely that would be cost-effective, bring in money and sort out fraud. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House--it does not seem to be a matter of contention--that landlord fraud is extensive and should be investigated. That would be a cost-effective way of tackling fraud.
I agree with some of the points that have been made about the dependency culture; it is a fact of life that such a culture can build up. It would be helpful if we could break it. We have also discussed means testing and the overall picture of society. Surely the only way to tackle such problems is to consider the wider picture. Labour party policies such as the statutory minimum wage, job creation, nursery provision and incentives to work would reduce the burden on the social security budget. We should take a two-pronged approach--we should not just attack fraud, but remove poverty and unemployment, which make people claim benefits. Surely there should be a two-way attack. Instead of paying vast sums of money from the social security budget, we should get people into work and create taxpayers who contribute to the country and who have disposable incomes. That is how the system was originally intended to operate and it is the only way in which it can work.
The Secretary of State charged the Labour party with being soft on fraud. I contrast that charge with the effective, constructive, hard-headed and realistic policy proposed by the shadow Chancellor in an attempt to give young people incentives to get into work, while linking that policy to benefits. I know that such a concept is not entirely welcomed by all hon. Members, but linking benefits with a back-to-work scheme for youngsters reflects the reality that, for 17 years, our young people have not had much hope of obtaining employment, which has inculcated in them a sense of dependency. I accept that, in some areas, claiming benefit is a way of life,but that way of life must be broken; the scheme of myhon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would go some way towards doing so.
I am sometimes a cynical and suspicious person, and it strikes me as curious that the Government have brought up the subject now in the run-up to the general election, especially when not one Conservative Member mentioned the other side of the coin--encouraging people to claim benefits to which they are legally entitled. The fact that the Conservatives have raised the subject now shows that they are making a desperate attempt to score cheap political points by making scapegoats of those in need. There is nothing more unedifying than the sight of the Conservative party losing its grip on power, its fingernails scraping down the wall as it becomes more and more desperate. Today's debate is part of that desperation.
The Government always place great faith in concepts such as efficiency. If they are genuinely concerned about benefits that are paid out inappropriately, they should tackle the overpayments made by their civil servants at the DSS. According to the Public Accounts Committee's report for 1993-94, those civil servants made overpayments of£500 million, affecting 642,000 claimants. The Government might say that the payments were not made on purpose, but they are ministerially responsible for them and, as far as I can make out, they have done nothing about them. They have merely come forward with cheap headlines that attack poor people, irrespective of the merits or honesty of their case. They have done so purely and simply to get headlines because they know that most of those people will not vote for them. Those are the actions of a cynical Conservative Government.
The Treasury's proposed 25 per cent. cut inDSS running costs may be economical, but it should not be confused with efficiency. Earlier, some hon. Members read from a leaked letter--Conservative Members kept making mistakes about who had sent which letter to whom. I shall finish with a quote from the letter sent from the Secretary of State to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I accept that it is annoying when letters are leaked. It stated:
"anti-fraud activities are an integral part of ensuring that social security spending goes to those who need it most".
"Your proposed settlement on running costs fills me with despair".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |