---

Mr. Frank Field: It was better than that, but the Secretary of State's side toned it down.

Mr. Lilley: No: it responded to my natural modesty.

Since I became Secretary of State, we have saved record amounts on fraud, and we have plans to go on breaking those records year after year. In a moment, I will spell out what we have achieved and what we will achieve, but first I want to dismiss the ridiculous claim of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that he and his party are--suddenly--tough on fraud.

The simple truth is that Labour has always been at best indifferent, and at worst hostile, to tackling benefit fraud. Nothing Labour Members have said today should be allowed to conceal that fact. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) castigated the Labour party for being

"for too long linked with the freeloader"--

and so it has. The fact that, before this debate, Labour has never initiated a debate on fraud illustrates its sheer indifference to the subject. When we have had such debates, Labour has invariably tried to play down the amount, and the importance of the issue.

I remember the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) accusing us of overstating the amount of fraud in the system. He argued that, even if our estimates were true, the amount was not significant. His words were:

"We should continually bear in mind the fact that, in the context of the overall budget, even £1 billion is not a large amount".

Today, the Labour Front-Bench team are

"overstating the amount of fraud in the system"

precisely because they now realise that £1 billion is a large amount, and they desperately need to conjure it up from somewhere to cover part of their spending plans.

Stopping housing benefit fraud is the responsibility of local authorities--most of which happen to be Labour. Most of them made little or no effort to tackle fraud--until I set each authority a target, backed by tough penalties and incentives, to galvanise it into action. In the first year, local authorities doubled the amount of fraud they detected, and increased the figure dramatically again the second year--yet members of Labour's Front Bench condemned those targets when I introduced them.

18 Jun 1996 : Column 700

The hon. Member for Withington, Labour's Front-Bench spokesman at the time, said:

"the recovery targets set for local authorities are unrealistically high. I know that there is a lower level and a higher level, but my investigations across the country convince me that many local authorities will find it extremely difficult to hit even the lower targets . . . the Government have set the targets unrealistically high".--[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1254-55.]

Since then, the Opposition have opposed our measures to prevent abuse of housing and other benefits.

In January, we introduced a reform to ensure that taxpayers no longer pay rents in full to any new claimant who chooses to occupy a property with a rent above the average for the type of property suitable for the household in that area--and Labour opposed it. That measure will make collusive deals between landlord and tenant to rip off the taxpayer harder, yet Labour opposed it.

From the autumn, a further reform will ensure that housing benefit does not pay higher rents for unemployed young people than they would normally be able to afford out of work. Labour opposed that reform too, just as it opposed other measures to prevent abuse--such as the objective medical test for incapacity benefit, to stop fit people abusing the system, and the removal of entitlement to housing and other benefits from bogus asylum seekers.

Although Labour said that asylum seekers were mostly genuine and came to the United Kingdom to escape persecution, not to acquire our benefits, the figures tell a different story. Our benefit changes were made in February. The number of people claiming asylum in that month fell 7 per cent. below last year's level. In April, the figure was down a quarter, and in May it was down one half.

Of course it is too early to be certain that trend will be sustained, or whether it will be reinforced when the Asylum and Immigration Bill is enacted--but the first signs that the flow of bogus asylum claims is being stemmed are encouraging. That is good news above all for genuine refugees, as it will be easier to deal speedily with their claims.

The Opposition's indifference and hostility to tackling fraud is in marked contrast to our commitment and success. I have consistently given the issue the priority it deserves. I put in place the organisation to pursue fraud effectively, appointed a senior official with exclusive responsibilities, set up a fraud board and appointed a Minister with specific responsibility for tackling fraud--my excellent hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

I developed for the first time a method of measuring the extent and incidence of fraud in each benefit. I increased funding for the fraud effort, and ring-fenced it against running cost cutbacks. I introduced home visits for new claims. I gave local authorities the incentives to tackle housing benefit fraud to which I have referred, plus extra guidance and help.

All those measure are already showing up in increasing success in detecting and stopping fraud. In each of the last four years, savings have exceeded targets--and targets have been sharply increased.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): Does the Minister, in his attack on fraud, intend to ensure that his party pays back the money paid to it by the fraudster Asil Nadir?

18 Jun 1996 : Column 701

Mr. Lilley: That is not a responsibility of mine, and nor is it relevant to today's debate. One of my main responsibilities is dealing with the frauds perpetrated by Robert Maxwell--the only Labour Member ever to take a serious interest in occupational pensions.

Total savings for last year as a result of my measures are expected to exceed £1.3 billion, including some£220 million of fraud discovered by local authorities--which, together with the Benefits Agency, discovered about £390 million of housing benefit fraud over the past year. We know how much fraud is detected. The question is, how much at present remains undetected? If one is to plan an effective fraud protection strategy, it is essential to know how much fraud there is, of what kind and what type of fraudster commits it.

In the past, no Government in this country or abroad had succeeded in measuring fraud, but we have developed a reliable method of doing so. It involves taking a representative sample of claimants, examining all available information on each claimant, sending trained investigators to visit claimants at home, carrying out visits unannounced and repeatedly until contact is made or non-residence established, and requiring the claimant to prove his or her identity and facts relevant to the claim.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State set any parameters for the hours during which home visits should be made or for the conduct of the officials who make them?

Mr. Lilley: I will certainly look into the case that the hon. Lady mentioned earlier, which would not have been a routine visit. They are not made any more--any more than I imagine the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury intends 4 million such visits as part of his unbelievable campaign.

Mrs. Fyfe: I was talking about the spotlight campaign in Glasgow.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady reminds me that she opposed our spotlight campaign in Glasgow. Unlike her, a large number of Glasgow citizens co-operated with that campaign, which succeeded in making considerable savings.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is in danger of misleading the House. I said that the Government should put as much energy into identifying people who are due benefits but not receiving them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That matter has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair. The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that there are other means of seeking such redress as she believes is appropriate.

Mr. Lilley: With the co-operation of the citizens of Glasgow, some £2.8 million has already been saved in that city, which means that we are better placed to meet the needs of genuine claimants in that part of the world.

Mr. Chris Smith: In the light of my hon. Friend's point of order, will the Secretary of State withdraw the slur against her views that he just perpetrated?

18 Jun 1996 : Column 702

Mr. Lilley: If I have in any way slurred any hon. Member, of course I withdraw my remarks--but the hon. Lady gave the clear impression that she was not supportive of the spotlight campaign.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): She said money should not be spent on that campaign.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend recalls the hon. Lady saying that she thought money should not be spent that way. She may have said that.

Mrs. Fyfe: For the record, when the Secretary of State came to Glasgow specifically to blitz benefit fraud,I commented--and I stand by this--that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to put equal effort into assisting people who have been awarded benefits running into thousands of pounds but have not received them. Of course I do not condone fraud, but it is contemptible to chase people for fraud and do nothing about claimants who are due benefits.

---