HC Deb 14 November 1968 vol 773 cc749-60

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

As I shall this evening be critical of the work of one small section of the staff of the Department of Social Security, I will start by saying that I yield to none of my admiration for the work done by that Department. During the Summer Recess I had the privilege of working alongside them, and I was amazed and inspired by their devotion to duty, patience, courtesy and tolerance. Nothing I say this evening is to be taken as meaning that I am critical of the staff as a whole.

I will first recite briefly the facts in the case of Mrs. Grainger of Speke, Liverpool, who is one of my constituents. On Saturday, 14th September, she came to see me at my weekly surgery, and I have in front of me the notes which I made on that occasion.

She is a divorced women with four small children and she told me that on the previous Thursday evening she had been visited at 9.45 at night by two young men who said that they were from the then Ministry of Social Security and asked if they could come in. She was rather surprised to see them at that late hour, but she let them in, and they proceeded to inflict upon her half an hour or so of bullying and aggression, which reduced her to tears, woke up her four children and reduced them all to tears also.

She receives £11 16s. a week from the Ministry of Social Security, as it then was, plus £2 9s. in family allowances. She was, therefore, bound to report to the Ministry any additional income she might have. It was on the pretext of checking up whether she was in receipt of any outside income that the representatives of the Ministry called upon her late that night. They asked her a great number of personal questions. They asked, for instance, "Do you know an American?" I do not know by what right a civil servant invades a private house and asks a private citizen whether she knows an American. They asked her whether she received money from a cer- tain gentleman who happened to be a friend of her father's and who called upon her occasionally to see that the children were well and happy.

After reducing her and her children to tears, and after expressing themselves satisfied that there was absolutely nothing wrong in her behaviour, they left, wagging their fingers at her and saying, "Remember, big brother is watching you." She was most distressed by all this and on the next morning she had the sense to go to see her local councillor, a councillor of the Labour Party, who lives close to her, and who advised her to come to see me. Mrs. Grainger did so on the Saturday morning, 36 hours later, when she told me this story.

On the Monday morning I went to the local office of the Ministry to ask for confirmation or otherwise of this story. I was told that the men would have been special investigation officers of the Ministry who are not controlled from the local office of the Ministry but from the regional office, but they would find out what had happened. In the meantime, and I was grateful for this, they very properly sent a man and a woman to see Mrs. Grainger, to soothe her and to express their regrets to her for what had happened.

On the next Thursday I interviewed the boss of the special investigation officers at the regional office, and he gave me some information about this call. He said that the time at which the men called was not 9.45 but 8.45 at night. He said that only one of the men spoke, the other one was there as a silent witness, which perhaps is more intimidating than having them both talking. He said that the remarks that Mrs. Grainger had imputed to these men were not quite accurate, there were slight variations; but by and large their implication was as I have stated. They denied completely that they ever said the iniquitous phrase, "Remember, big brother is watching you".

I take Mrs. Grainger to be a witness of truth. I have seen her many times. She has repeated her story to me and to other people many times, has never varied it and has never been shaken from it. She came to me within 36 hours of the incident and she had absolutely no reason to come to me unless she had a true story to tell. Be that as it may—there is a conflict of evidence here—let us examine what the Ministry admits happened. In the Ministry's own admission, two young men called well after dark, without warning, on a young woman living alone with her children and, to her great distress, proceeded to ask the most personal questions about her way of life.

I contend that it is indefensible for a civil servant of any kind to be able to invade a private house at any time, especially late at night, where a young woman is living alone and bully her. There are so many other ways in which this problem could have been settled. She could have been asked to answer the questions by letter. She could have been asked to call at the local office of the Ministry to answer them. They could have made an appointment to come and see her—written and said that they would be coming at such-and-such a time. At the very least, they could have called on her in daylight and not late in the evening. They chose to do none of these things.

I understand that the Ministry received information from an individual whose identity it will not reveal to me that Mrs. Grainger might have sources of income which she had not revealed to the Ministry. Her file was transferred to the special investigation officers, who sat on it for six months without approaching Mrs. Grainger at all and decided to swoop on her without warning in the way which I have described.

I know perfectly well that the function of these "bully boys" is to protect the public purse, but I contend that there are some rights of a citizen which are more important even than protecting the public purse. I dare say that if we abolished habeas corpus we should save a bit of public money. I dare say that if we abolished my right to complain in the House about this behaviour we should save a bit of public money. But nobody suggests that we should do either of those things. These are the sacred rights of citizens in this country; and so is the privacy of the home.

The Minister will no doubt tell me that Mrs. Grainger need not have admitted these men and that, when they called and asked to come in, she could have said "No" and sent them away. If she had done so nothing more could have been done. But very few people know their rights in these matters, and if she had done that what would have been the effect on the payment which she was getting from the Ministry? What would have happened if her file had been marked "Unwilling to be interviewed"? In a case like this, the recipient of benefit cannot win, however innocent he or she may be. She has the choice of placing her income in jeopardy or being invaded and bullied in her own home and, in some cases reported to me, of having her home humiliatingly searched without a vestige of authority by the searchers. Cases have been reported of wardrobes being gone through in a search for men's clothes and of Christmas cards on the mantelpiece being checked to see whether they contained affectionate messages from men.

I ask the Under-Secretary to give undertakings on four reasonable points. First, that only in the most exceptional circumstances should his special investigation officers be authorised to call at a citizen's house after dark. Secondly, that in no circumstances should a male officer be authorised to call on a woman living alone without having a female officer with him. Thirdly, that calls without appointment should never be made unless efforts to make an appointment have failed. Fourthly, that young men should not normally be used for calls at people's homes on delicate missions of this kind.

We have here the classical case of an anonymous informer, a reference to a special investigation group, a late-night knock on the door, a bullying interview, and a warning that "big brother" is watching. It sounds more like Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or Orwell's "1984", but it happened in Liverpool in 1968. We in the House are brought up to believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Violence is stalking the streets again both to the east and west of us.

An increasingly authoritarian régime is the normal reaction to violence, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not tell me that this is not a problem, or that this was an isolated incident of two young men exceeding their duty accidentally, because this case has been given considerable publicity and I have had a flood of letters from all over the country. I shall not read them all but I want to read extracts from two of them. The first is from a woman in much the same circumstances as Mrs. Grainger, separated from her husband, getting a divorce, and drawing social security benefit. The letter reads: One morning in March this year, a man from the Ministry of Social Security called on me and explained that if my husband did not pay his maintenance, and I applied to the Ministry for extra benefit, he would be the person who would take my husband to court. He said that he would have to ascertain the cause of the marriage breakdown, and that he would want to know details of what occurred in the sex life I had with my husband. How many times I said 'No', etc. I told him that what I did in bed with my husband was nothing to do with him or the State…He asked me if I had any boy friends, if so I was to tell him of any, if there were any in the future I was to contact him and give him details. He said that there was no need for me to get a job as I was allowed to earn £2 0s. 0d. per week without it affecting my supplementary pension, he commented that surely a woman of my talents could earn £2 0s. 0d. per week without any difficulty. That if I had a boy friend in on Saturday evenings I was to make him pay for his pleasures. Incidentally, he also told me that any boy friends I had now or in the future would have to pay for their pleasure. Quite a lot more than this was said, but I haven't room here to include it all. I was shocked, disgusted and very embarrassed. I immediately telephoned the District Manager of the Ministry and complained to him. I was told that they were entitled to ask these questions under an Act of Parliament.

The Under Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland)

If the person to whom the hon. Member is referring, who has written to him—whether it be his constituent or the constituent of another—will get in touch with me I shall certainly investigate the case immediately, as I have the case of Mrs. Grainger.

Mr. Fortescue

I am grateful. I shall certainly do that.

The second letter is from a man employed by the National Assistance Board—before the Ministry of Social Security was created He was so digusted at the activities of the special investigation officers of the National Assistance Board that he wrote direct to the Minister complaining about their conduct. He has written to me giving me extracts from his letter to the Ministry. One reads as follows: The position of deserted wives is such that I would, in their place, prefer to steal rather than to claim rights which would bring the 'Gestapo' to my door. No warrant seems required for snooping, and the worst interpretation tends to be placed on all trivia observed…Whereas evidence must be genuine to have any chance in a divorce court, the slightest trifle, light as air, will be good enough for the Ministry's investigator. Banalities such as ' She seems the kind of girl who likes a man about the place', when not a shred of actual fact has emerged. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have seen the editorial in The Times last week, which finished as follows: We think of ourselves as one of the nations where freedom is best guarded, because it has been carefully guarded in the past; we have in fact less protection against the power of Government and the oppression of administration than many nations which have felt it right to guard their liberties more recently than ourselves. Finally, I want to recite a piece of doggerel which struck me very forcibly the other day, about Hitler. It reads as follows: This was the thing that nearly had us mastered. Do not rejoice at his defeat, you men. Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard The bitch that whelped him is on heat again. Let the Minister remember that for the ordinary citizen on the corporation estate the first sign of tyranny is not fighting in the streets or the passing of oppressive laws, but the knock on the door when darkness has fallen and the intrusion of two men from the Ministry.

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland)

In the debate on 24th October, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortes-cue), as he has done this evening, paid generous tribute to the staff of the local offices of the Ministry of Social Security, but he singled out for criticism the activities of the special investigation officers of the Ministry and referred to the case which he has raised this evening as being a particularly scandalous example of the activities of these men in my constituency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1968; Vol. 771, c. 1646.] Tonight, he has spoken in a similar sense. Therefore, I should like first of all to say something about what is meant by "special investigation" in this context and then to come to the specific case which he has raised. The great majority of claimants to supplementary benefit are honest and straightforward and their claims give rise to no difficulty. It would be a matter for legitimate criticism if no steps at all were taken to verify people's statements about their circumstances, but ordinarily such verification as prudence requires can be made promptly and with no embarrassment to those concerned.

For example, it is easy and reasonable to ask to see a person's rent book to ensure that the actual rent being paid is properly reflected in the allowance, and to look at any relevant bank books to remove any misunderstanding about capital and so on. This sort of verification is done at the area offices, in the normal day-to-day business, by the regular staff. If there is thought to be anything wrong with a person's claim, the officers concerned will, of course, do what they can to look into the specific point on which there is doubt.

For example, if there is some suggestion that a man claiming to be unemployed may be working for a particular employer, the area office will ask the employer for the facts so as to establish the position one way or another. Any scheme under which £400 million and more a year is paid to the poorer members of our community largely on the strength of their own statements is bound to provide opportunities for the unscrupulous or morally weak to obtain benefit to which they are not entitled.

In the debate on 24th October, the hon. Member mentioned that the Ministry's officers quickly detect the dishonest claimant, and it is certainly true that experienced officers sometimes seem to develop a sixth sense in these matters. But not all dishonest claimants are so easily recognised, and suspicion which may arise in a variety of ways that a particular case is not all that it appears to be may well not be so easy to clear up. To establish the truth sometimes requires a thorough and perhaps lengthy investigation.

Let me give just two examples. First is that of a man who has declared that he is not working but who is, neverthe- less believed to be doing so under an assumed name, or on his own account in a district some distance from his home. He may be one of those men, with a spurious or mild medical complaint, to whom the hon. Member referred on 24th October, who is thought to be taking advantage of his medical certificate to work on the side. The second example is that of a woman who represents herself as a deserted wife, but is nevertheless thought to be living with her husband, and who, to disguise the situation, usually keeps out of the way during daylight hours.

In any particular case, the suspicion that something is wrong may be ill-founded, but it is clearly the Department's duty to do all that can properly be done to confirm that an allowance is payable, or to stop payment if it is not. The local area office, if only because it is fully occupied in dealing with the entitlement of straightforward claimants, cannot be expected to undertake complicated and time-consuming inquiries. Therefore, such cases are dealt with by a number of officers who have been detached from normal day-to-day work. There are at present about 145 of them for the whole country. The nature of their duties has remained substantially unchanged for over 10 years.

It is these officers who are called special investigators. I hope that no one will be misled by this description. I was rather disappointed, to put it mildly, to hear the hon. Member refer to them as bully boys. They are nothing of the kind. It is important to realise that these are ordinary civil servants conducting inquiries normally open to the Ministry but which the ordinary office staff cannot undertake. There is nothing wrong or sinister in this. It is no more unreasonable to have some officers specialising in this work for a time than to have other officers specially assigned to other aspects of supplementary benefit work, such as officers dealing with the problems of the long-term unemployed or officers dealing with cases in which special welfare action may be indicated.

We recognise, of course, that the officers involved in making special investigations may be called upon to undertake protracted and complex inquiries in very difficult circumstances which, to say the least, call for the exercise of considerable tact on occasion, and in selecting people for these duties we have very much in mind the need to ensure that those selected can be relied upon to work with discretion.

Nor is this the sort of work which can always be confined to normal office hours or be limited to making direct inquiries of the people concerned. For instance, in the case mentioned by the hon. Member of a wife claiming to be deserted but thought to have her husband at home, there may well be a need to keep contact with the household at any hour.

Mr. Fortescue

It was never said by anybody that my constituent was thought to have a husband at home. This is the first time that anyone has suggested that to her or to me or to anybody else. Is the hon. Member saying that that is what was the suspicion?

Mr. Pentland

No. I may be mistaken in this and, if so, I apologise to the hon. Member, but I thought that he was making the point when he was reading from the letter which he had received.

Naturally, some of these cases may call for more thorough and time-consuming inquiries than the great majority of cases, but the officers concerned are under very clear direction—I want to make this clear—not to take any action which could legitimately be criticised as inconsistent with their position as civil servants. They work under the general control of the regional controller's offices.

I come to the particular case of Mrs. Grainger. As the hon. Member will realise, I am in some difficulty here, because he knows full well that all claims for supplementary benefit are dealt with in strict confidence. I should be very reluctant, for the claimant's sake, to discuss all the details of a case of this sort in public. It would be particularly unfair to Mrs. Grainger for me to do so because, as I look at it, it is obvious that it would be very dangerous to refer to her case in detail where allegations have been made but not substantiated.

However, I can assure the hon. Member that in this case the information which we received which started the inquiry was not anonymous—by no means anonymous. If the hon. Member would like me to write to him giving him a more detailed explanation of why it was considered desirable to look into this case in the first place, I should be very happy to do so and to explain why the officers took the course of action which they took. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is concerned not so much with the details of the case as with the fact that Mrs. Grainger was visited in the evening, that the visit was made by two officers and that the officers are alleged to have taken an aggressive attitude.

Mr. Fortescue

And that both officers were men.

Mr. Pentland

The hon. Gentleman has a point there and I assure him that we will consider it. There are difficulties involved in recruiting women for this work.

When a case calls for detailed inquiries, it would sometimes be pointless to confine them to normal office hours. On the evening when Mrs. Grainger was interviewed, the visit to her home had to be fitted in with inquiries that the officers were making in other cases. But the main reason for calling at 8.45 p.m.—and not at 9.45 p.m., as Mrs. Grainger originally alleged—was because the officers had information that appeared to be reliable that she was expected for work at a club at 9 p.m., and this was judged to be the best time to test the accuracy of the information. In the circumstances, I do not think that it can be regarded as wrong that that time was chosen. I have no evidence at all to suggest that any compulsion or threat was used by the officers to gain admission.

Mr. Fortescue

Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments about 9 p.m., why was it not possible for the officers to choose to call between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.? Why did they wait until after dark and then call just before Mrs. Grainger was going to work? Was that a reasonable hour for two men to call on a woman living alone? The hon. Gentleman said that the call was timed to fit in with other inquiries that were being made. The officers could have called the following day. They had waited some months. They did not have to call at that particular time on that particular day.

Mr. Pentland

That was the lime considered to be appropriate for the investigating officers to call and to fit in with the other cases with which they were dealing. It was understood that the lady was working at the place I mentioned from 9 p.m., and therefore 8.45 p.m. was considered an appropriate time to call.

I was about to say that I have no evidence to suggest that any compulsion or threat was used by the officers to gain admission. I have repeated that to emphasise the point. I also wish to make it clear—and I have gone into the matter most carefully—that the officers concerned deny emphatically that they used the phrase "Big brother is watching you" or that they were aggressive in any way to Mrs. Grainger.

Why did two officers make the visit? This is simply a frequent practice in a case of this type, to save any possibility of embarrassment to the officers and the person interviewed. I need not elaborate the point at length. In any event, it was thought sensible that the investigating officer should be accompanied by another. In fairness to Mrs. Grainger, I emphasise that this was in no way due to any features special to her case. It was not an unusual procedure.

That is as much as I propose to say about this case, except to emphasise again that nothing I have said is intended to reflect on Mrs. Grainger. I have referred to her case only because it was raised with me, but I will put the matter in a wider perspective. It is the experience of most hon. Members that people are very ready to approve of the use of public money to help those who are genuinely in difficulty. However, they resent—we all know this to be true—and sometimes bitterly resent any suggestion that the unscrupulous are finding opportunities to help themselves to benefits which they would not receive were their true circumstances known. If the social services are not to be brought into disrepute—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.