HC Deb 27 March 1961 vol 637 cc954-6
43. Miss Bacon

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that Mr. D. D. Williams of 45, Matlock Terrace, Leeds, was acquitted on 11th April, 1960, at Leeds Quarter Sessions on a charge, brought by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, of falsely obtaining unemployment benefits, and that the Department is now demanding the repayment from Mr. Williams of a sum of over £90 on the grounds that he was not entitled to the benefits he received; and if he will make a statement of his policy in such matters

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The question whether Mr. Williams is liable to repay the unemployment benefit he received, which is, of course, distinct from the question of the criminal offence of which he was acquitted, is now before the local tribunal. I cannot at present, therefore, say anything more about this case.

Miss Bacon

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not asking him to comment on what is before the tribunal? I am asking why the demand was made originally. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in correspondence I have had with his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary it is admitted that the grounds on which the Ministry has asked for the repayment of this money are precisely the grounds on which he was taken to court by the right hon. Gentleman and acquitted? Is he now saying that although a court of law says that a man is innocent the Minister can then adjudge him to be guilty?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As, I think the hon. Lady will appreciate if she studies my main Answer, there are two quite different tests. The provision in the Larceny Act under which this man was charged involved proving intent to defraud. The provisions in the National Insurance Act and Regulations governing the question of whether benefit is liable to be repaid are quite different. It is that quite different issue that is now before the local tribunal, and I really must not be led by the hon. Lady's blandishments to comment on it.

Miss Bacon

But are not the grounds on which this man was taken to court—when it was alleged that he was working for his brother and receiving payment, and of which he was adjudged to be innocent—precisely the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman is asking for the repayment of the money?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

No. I do not think that the hon. Lady has really taken the point. The facts required to establish a criminal charge under the Larceny Act are quite different from those required to establish a justification to repay. If the hon. Lady will study my main Answer reflectively, I think she will see the force of that.

Miss Bacon

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.