---

Mr. Heald: The Bill contains eight solid measures to tackle landlord fraud. Is the hon. Gentleman denying that?

Mr. Field: No, I am not denying that. I await with anticipation the Minister's speech, in which I hope that he will put forward cogent arguments as to why the Government do not accept the new clause. I was merely warning him that, if he fails to do so, he will stand in the dock appearing to the public to have two standards--one for claimants and a gentler one for landlords, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) has just said.

The debate has taken a surprising turn. When the Select Committee on Social Security began its investigations into fraud, it had two clear objectives. The first was to find ways of protecting the largest of public budgets from people who make fraudulent claims, either accidentally or on a more organised basis. It seemed to us inconceivable that the budget was not under attack. The second objective was to try to build a consensus in the House--such a consensus exists in the country--on fighting fraud. It appeared to us that the easiest way to build a consensus was to seek redress for the abuses by claimants and landlords.

One of the positive results of the report is the unanimity that has developed in the House on tackling social security fraud. Indeed, listening to what Ministers say, it becomes clear that the debate has so changed that Labour is now calling for tougher measures than those that the Government propose. That is the crux of the new clause. To answer the case cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, the Government must explain what measures in the Bill will fulfil the objectives of the new clause. If they fail to provide such an explanation, they will appear to voters to have two standards.

It would not be surprising if a large number of people thought that. Until the new consensus emerged in the House, it was all too easy for the Government to put over the message that fraud was a claimant issue, allowing people to think subliminally that it was a Labour problem, because Labour supporters were perpetrating the fraud. The Select Committee report suggested a more even-handed approach to the issue.

Labour has certainly adopted such an approach. We are as serious about rooting out individual abuse by claimants as about giving the authorities the most effective powers possible to counter landlord fraud. I wait with interest to find out how the Government will deal with that.

Let me pick up another issue that was touched upon earlier in the debate. Have we become more effective in trying to prevent social security fraud, and do we always pursue those who perpetrate it? In other words, do we have a system of incentives that encourages local authorities not only to prevent fraud, but actively to prosecute those who commit fraud and publicly bring them to justice? Many Opposition Members are worried that, although the present structure of incentives and penalties seeks to prevent fraudulent claims--that is important--local authorities do not always have the resources to prosecute those who perpetrate large-scale fraud.

4 Feb 1997 : Column 811

I hope that the Minister will not join the Secretary of State in skating on thin ice and trying to get away with double standards to counter fraud. At present, we are prepared to throw the book at fraudulent claimants, but we tend to be much more careful in respect of landlords.

It may be true that fraudulent claimants get away with more money, but that is questionable. Nevertheless, there is no question that the largest individual acts of fraud are perpetrated by landlords, as it is much easier for them.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the offence that the Bill addresses is the same whether it is perpetrated by a landlord or a claimant. The new clause proposes that the sentence for a landlord should be 12 years rather than seven years. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with a difficulty that regularly arises when organised gangs who are not landlords attempt to attack the benefits system? Their criminality is just as serious as that of fraudulent landlords. In those circumstances, why should there not be equality?

Mr. Field: Indeed there should be equality. It is not too late for the Minister to table a manuscript amendment to that effect. We are anxious to make a distinction between fraud committed by individuals and that which is seriously organised by groups of people. The public are most concerned about that.

As I have said, it would be inconceivable if the largest budgets were not under attack by organised crime, yet many people make a distinction between that category of social security fraud and fraud that is committed by individuals. It is not that the public approve of that fraud, but it is quite clear that certain individuals commit fraud because their position in the labour market has been transformed in the past 10 years by the Government's massive extension of means- tested assistance.

Many such people keep quiet about the change in their circumstances because of the reduction in their personal income during that period. Although that is wrong and needs to be stopped, it is clearly different from the problem that the new clause seeks to address--landlord fraud and the groups of claimants to whom the Minister referred, who determinedly commit fraud against the public purse.

I sit down with considerable excitement. I hope to hear not only that the Government intend to accept our new clause, but whether they will table a manuscript amendment seeking to single out groups who are organising fraud in a similar way to landlords, and treat them the same as fraudulent landlords.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I came into the debate to speak on subsequent amendments that excited me, but having listened to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) express his excitement about waiting for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to get to his feet, I have become excited about how much new Labour has permeated the thoughts not only of the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most knowledgable

4 Feb 1997 : Column 812

Members on social security matters, but the Liberal Democrats. It is extraordinary to see the web that is being woven. I am sure that Opposition Members are acting in an honourable way, but it is nonetheless an extraordinary way.

The Labour party has traditionally been against landlords. Socialists would always be attacking them. Labour is obviously trying to put down a marker for when it goes back to being old Labour and returns to its socialist roots. It is trying to set a trap for the Government, so that it will be able to claim on the hustings and in its election manifesto that it is the tough party on law and order. Opposition Members know very well that the new clause will not be accepted.

Mr. Field: The biggest landlords in the country are local authorities. The Opposition are as clear about preventing fraud among them as they are about preventing it among landlords in the private sector. There are no double standards on the Opposition Benches. It is interesting how standards are developing on the Conservative Benches. If we wait long enough before the excitement of the Under-Secretary's reply, we will no doubt see new Conservatism.

Mr. Bruce: One might have to wait an awful long time for new Conservatism. Conservatism is, of course, a very basic approach, to which we have been sticking through thick and thin, despite the Labour party trying to out-Conservative the Conservative party.

I was trying to expound what came through clearly from Opposition Members' speeches. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are saying, "Here we have a wonderful opportunity through the new clause"--even if it is not voted on--"to say that we are the really tough group of people." Perhaps even the Ulster Unionists will be making such a claim, although I am sure that they are much too sensible to jump on the bandwagon.

I am glad to say that all of us in the House are very pleased to see the clampdown on fraud. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us whether other offences, such as conspiracies to defraud, would put very large fraud into a category outside the Bill's remit.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): In case my hon. Friend is misinterpreted, I should point out that, whereas the Labour Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrats are all over the place on the issue, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), who serves on the Social Security Committee, knows precisely what he is talking about. He brings a great deal of wisdom and expertise to the Committee.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the trailer for the hon. Gentleman's speech. I was very careful not to put him on one side of the web or the other. I am sure that he will speak for himself, and very ably.

We can clearly see the web that is being constructed. Labour Members are taking what they believe is a wonderful opportunity to say that they are tougher on crime than the Conservatives. One can see that entering

4 Feb 1997 : Column 813

their election manifestos immediately. I am tempted to suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he accepts the new clause.

Mr. Field: Ah, that is what we want.

Mr. Bruce: With a big smile on his face, the hon. Gentleman says that that is what Labour wants, but is that really sensible?

As many hon. Members know, I quite often speak about prisons--I am often invited on to television programmes to talk about the situation in them. There are two prisons in my constituency, and we might be getting a third. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members constantly tell me that long prison sentences do not work, and that the Government should be trying other measures.

If the new clause had been tabled by the Government, a Labour party spokesman would no doubt have told us about the wonders of community service orders in dealing with multiple fraud. Such is the nonsense that comes up. I really stood up to speak so that, when we see the election manifestos, people will be able to go to Hansard, and so understand what the Opposition were up to.

---