§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)In June, 1969, following the Report of the Fulton Committee, the Prime Minister presented to Parliament a White Paper entitled, "Information and the Public Interest". Referring to the Official Secrets Act, the White Paper, in paragraph 32, recognised that Departments do in practice authorise the release of much official information, but stated that the ultimate responsibility must rest with Ministers themselves. The conclusion of the White Paper in paragraph 36, was that the Government agreed with the Fulton Committee in wishing to see more public explanation of administrative processes and increasing participation of civil servants.
My subject this evening is the administration of social security benefits, a subject on which the public have the clearest right to be most fully informed.
My objects are to assert that the Ministers in charge of Health and Social Security totally failed to create any public awareness of what has been happening in this field; that they failed to take the most obviously necessary remedial measures; that they have thereby created a wide and increasing suspicion among the public at the extent of the scandals in this administrative field; that, worse still, they have created a suspicion that the Ministry was itself anxious that such 946 scandals should be hushed up; that only when their hand was forced by the unauthorised publications of these scandals by one of their own officials were the proper public admissions made and proper remedial actions taken; that their action in dismissing the officer in question was an act of petty spite for an offence which as their own subsequent admissions and measures have proved was wholly in the public interest; and that all these consequences flowed from the fact that in the administration of these benefits the Prime Minister's White Paper has been almost totally ignored by the Ministers in charge of Health and Social Security.
One cold fact—to be found buried in a volume of Government statistics—is that in the five years from 1964 to 1969 the amount of public money spent on supplementary benefits increased from £239 million to £487 million—more than double.
It is a tragic coincidence that this debate should be taking place on the day of the death of our colleague, Roger Gresham Cooke, who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), was first responsible, on 20th October, 1969, for raising in the House the matter of these scandals themselves.
The Minister's reply on that occasion can be fairly summarised as follows: that the proportion of the fraudulent cases was very small; that the work of the officials was very good; that the amount of rumour-mongering was very wrong, and that the state of morale in the offices of the Supplementary Benefit Commission was not very low. The Minister added that individual cases of abuse ought to be reported by members of the public, and concluded, a trifle vaguely, by saying that there were probably additional measures that needed to be taken.
It is a just matter for comment that even these Ministerial statements would not have been made had not my hon. Friends brought up the matter in an Adjournment debate; and that they would not have raised the matter then but for a number of unauthorised disclosures by one of the Minister's own officials in the columns of that respected weekly, the Spectator.
947 The question to which the House ought to have an answer is why the facts of the situation have not been made known to the public by Ministers themselves, or possibly by their senior civil servants. This surely could have been done—and ought to have been done—in three ways: first, by statements to the House; secondly, by speeches and statements in the country; and, thirdly, by attempting to secure wide publicity for prosecutions in the courts.
I am not satisfied that the Ministers have performed their duties under any of those three heads. They are directly responsible, in consequence, for the public suspicion which now surrounds the whole subject to social security benefits and for the tide of rumour-mongering of which they are the first to complain.
One of the first accusations made in the Spectator by the Ministry's own official was that the special investigators were far too few in number to be able to cope with the various types of abuse. In view of what has happened, I must now ask the Minister why this situation was permitted to exist, for that it did exist has now been made clear by subsequent events.
On 15th December-10 weeks after the Spectator article—the Minister came to the House and announced the appointment of 100 extra specialist staff in 1970 as unemployment review officers and special investigators. It will be easy for the Minister to reply tonight that in fact this decision had been taken long before the Spectator article appeared, but the sad truth is that such a reply after what has happened will not now be believed by the public.
Quite recently it was reported in the Press that the Ministry officials' own association had called for the appointment of a special investigator for each office to check up on the layabouts and the frauds. More recently, it was reported that on a visit to one of his offices only last week the Minister was told by one of his women officials how difficult it was to contact the special investigator at short notice. In a recent article in the Spectator one of the Ministry's retired deputy regional controllers stressed the misuse of the Official Secrets Act to cover up embarrassing disclosure and the bad 948 effects of this both on morale of the staff and the standing of the Ministry.
The effect of doing this could hardly have been worse. Ministers must have known two years ago of the rising tide of indignation. There cannot be an hon. Member who has not been made aware of it by his constituents. In yesterday's Sunday Times we read of a miner, a shot firer, interviewed in the South Ayrshire constituency explaining that his Scottish National Party vote would actually be an anti-Labour vote because of too many deductions from pay and too many habitual layabouts on welfare.
All this is made worse by a Government which gives the appearance of condoning it. It is made much worse when belatedly the Government's hand is, or appears to have been, forced by publicity from elsewhere and action is taken which should have been taken months or years ago. Ministers have only themselves to blame if the conclusion that the public have drawn is that the Government are actively in league not only with the permissive but also with the layabout society.
§ Mr. MoreI come to the question of the Ministry's own special investigator, Mr. Robin Page, who was responsible for spilling the beans about these scandals first in the Spectator and secondly in the News of the World. I think it a fair assessment that, whatever the breaches or offences of which he may have been guilty, Mr. Page's articles have been proved by the Government's own subsequent actions and admissions to have been wholly in the public interest.
It can hardly be open to question that both Mr. Page and the two newspapers concerned have contravened the Official Secrets Act. The Government have dismissed Mr. Page, and they have failed to prosecute the newspapers. One must ask why. The public answer will be that the Government preferred the soft target. They could get Mr. Page on his Civil Service undertaking which, like all civil servants, he had to sign, and they could duck the newspapers by the simple expedient of the Attorney-General not giving leave to prosecute. They could deal with the little fellow and let the two big fellows go scot free. Whether or not 949 the Government actively are in league with the permissive and layabout societies, the verdict will certainly be that they have ranged themselves with the bullies and the cowards.
Even at this stage, the Government could, I believe, do good by reversing both those decisions. They could to some extent put themselves in the clear by offering Mr. Page his job back. I hope that Mr. Page would have the dignity to refuse such an offer, on the view that he no longer wished to be associated with employers who had so blatantly failed in their own duty, but that would be a matter for him. More important in the public interest, the Government could still decide to prosecute the newspapers. This would bring the whole matter into the open and might greatly help to clear the public air. If they do not prosecute the newspapers, the conclusion must be that, having failed in their original duty of keeping the public informed, they now lack the courage to face the publicity which a prosecution would entail.
Whatever else is done, this Ministry—here I return to my starting point—might at least make some pretence of following the Prime Minister's own White Paper. How many public relations officers does the Ministry employ, and at what salaries? The Ministry produces its Annual Report every year. One searches them in vain for an indication of the extent of the scandals and of the remedial measures. The 1967 Report, on the contrary, commented with apparent pride on the "spectacular increase" in local office activity resulting from the success of Ministry publicity in overcoming reluctance to apply for benefits. This process, with its quaint phrasing, might be described in very different terms by some of the Ministry's own officials, about whom I wish now to say a word.
In a speech on 9th December, the Minister attempted to draw a red herring across the whole subject by protesting at the attacks made on his officials. He knows very well that the attack is not on his social security officials. No one can have anything but sympathy and admiration for the officials who every Friday have to fight the weekly battle in the social security offices. They are, in fact, the first victims of the present situation.
What about the senior civil servants in the Ministry? Under the White Paper, 950 both a right and a duty is imposed upon them as well as on the Minister. Did the Minister consult them about publicity and who should make it? Did he obtain advice from them? Have any of them made public statements on their own? Why did the Minister not frankly tell the public what the position was when there was still time? Whatever the part played by his senior officers, it is the Minister's ultimate responsibility, and it is he who must answer.
§ 10.29 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals)It is my usual custom when answering an Adjournment debate to thank the hon. Member for the points which he has raised and to congratulate him on having taken the opportunity to raise them. I cannot do that tonight. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has made some deplorable statements in attacks both upon Ministers and, I believe, upon the integrity of those working for the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
The hon. Gentleman has accused Ministers of seeking to hush up the facts. That is utterly untrue. He knows that there have been statements made in the House of Commons and in the Adjournment debate to which he refers. There have been statements in answer to Questions. There has never been any reluctance on the part of my right hon. Friend or myself to answer any questions which are put. I have made a number of statements and speeches in the country, including Press releases.
I find it deplorable that the hon. Member, as an honoured Member of the House, should decide that he will give credence to the allegations made by individuals and to widely publicised reports in newspapers without seeking to find out for himself the accuracy of those statements. I believe that he is himself contributing to the rumour-mongering to which he referred. He has contributed to the gross exaggeration which there has been about the administration of the social security system, with inevitable reflections upon the social security officers up and down the country who seek to do their job effectively, and who, I believe, are doing their job effectively. I both deplore and deny the allegations which have been made against Ministers.
951 I will look first at the central point, which concerns the question of abuse of supplementary benefits. Both the hon. Member and I believe that a number of newspapers have grossly exaggerated the situation. I stand by the statement, to which he made reference, which I made when speaking in the House. I believe that we are dealing with a small but unscrupulous minority. We are dealing with a small group of those who are prepared to try to scrounge off the Welfare State. But the vast majority of those who are receiving benefits from the Supplementary Benefits Commission—and I believe that, if he is prepared to be frank, the hon. Member will agree that he knows in his heart of hearts that this is the case—are old people, retired people, widows, sick and disabled people and deserted wives. The hon. Member knows that we are dealing with a very small minority. He is nodding his head in agreement. If he knows that, then it is deplorable that, by taking the time of the House, he should seek to give the impression that we are dealing with abuse on a mass scale.
The job of the supplementary benefits officers is very difficult. It is to determine between right and wrong and whether the truth is presented to them—to sort out the sheep from the goats and to be certain, when they agree to make a payment, that they are doing so on the basis of evidence which is sound. It would be very easy for officers, when there is a doubt, to decide that they should always not give the benefit of that doubt to the applicant. But if we turn the screws too hard we shall do great damage to the vast proportion of the people, whose needs are genuine and whose needs we must meet.
The hon. Member's complaint, I think, is that we have not taken trouble to deal with those cases, which we can find out, in which there has been abuse. In fact, a great deal of work is done. Any suspicion which arises is fully investigated, and when fraud is established we do not hesitate to prosecute, after considering the circumstances of the individual and the seriousness of the offence. In 1968 there were 3,677 prosecutions against supplementary benefit claimants, including 1,460 against itinerants. The provisional figures for 1969 are 4,658 952 and 1,856 respectively. In addition, a general extension of payment by Giro through the post instead of cash is likely to make fraud much more difficult for the man out to make quick profits by moving rapidly about the country.
A great deal of investigation is done in local offices, but the more complex cases are passed to mobile special investigators. The number of these, now over 200, has been doubled since 1964 and a further increase has been authorised, as I said in the statement which I made to the House.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the decision to increase the number both of special investigators and of unemployment review officers was the result of any publicity in the Press or any statement made by anyone. That was utterly untrue. There has been a steady increase because we have known that it was necessary that we should have staff available and trained to deal with this small number of troublesome cases which occurred. The hon. Member may care to look at the date of the article to which he referred. He may then like to take note of the fact that the Civil and Public Services Association, to which, had he been a member, Mr. Page would have had the opportunity to make representations, suggested back in May at their annual conference that the time had come for an increase in staff. In any case, it was not surprising that there should be an increase, because there have been other increases during the course of the last five years.
In 1968 the special investigators dealt with over 13,000 cases of suspicion and over 6,000 allowances were reduced or withdrawn. In 1969 they cleared about 15,000 cases with similar results. This is certainly not inaction. It is significant that after careful investigation no proof of fraud could be found in more than half the cases which were thought to be doubtful.
It has also been alleged—it was alleged in the News of the World and in a statement made by Mr. Robin Page—that in respect of deserted and divorced wives, widows and single girls with children, one in four claims were fraudulent. This was untrue. A comprehensive survey in 1964 and 1965 suggested that under 7½ per cent. of claims from this group, whom one would have thought were particularly vulnerable to fraud, were false. From 953 recent random checks it seems unlikely that the present position is in any way worse than it was in 1965.
Voluntary unemployment is a field in which we have been very active. Many people who are unemployed apparently for no good reason are unemployed for reasons of physical or mental handicap and are virtually unemployable. Far from abusing social security, they are in need of welfare help, rehabilitation and training. It is grossly unfair of some members of the public and of some people like the hon. Member to repeat suggestions that all those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits are in some way scroungers and are not prepared to take work. This is not true. We have to be careful that we do not render great hardship to those people.
My right hon. Friend, when she was Minister of Social Security, introduced in July, 1968, a new procedure whereby, in parts of the country where there is employment available, single men of 45 and under were put on what was called "four weeks and off". It was recognised that they had to take employment. This has been a means of reducing scrounging in this field to a considerable extent, and this experiment by my right hon. Friend was very successful.
I do not want to minimise the significance of this small minority who seek to take advantage of the provisions of the Welfare State, but I want to make it clear that we are dealing with a very small minority and the number of cases have to be seen in the light of the whole breadth of service rendered by my Department, amounting in 1968 to 17 million claims for insurance and industrial injury benefits, 600,000 for family allowances and over 6 million for supplementary pensions and allowances.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Robin Page. He said that Mr. Page was dismissed because he disclosed information about the level of abuse of supplementary benefits which my right hon. Friend preferred to conceal. This is absolutely untrue. I wish to remind the House of the real reasons for Mr. Page's dismissal, and these I gave to the hon. Gentleman in reply to a Question from him on 8th December last year. Mr. Page deliberately broke important staff rules by sending for publication in the Press articles relating to the official 954 business of the Department without his obtaining authority from the Department.
I find it very surprising that any responsible Member of this House should suggest that it is right and proper for members of the Civil Service to decide to act on their own and to publish articles in a newspaper giving information purely on their own views and using information gained within the confidentiality that officers of the Social Security Department inevitably have. To suggest that policemen should use information gained in the course of their duties and should receive money from writing articles in the Press is absolutely absurd. This gentleman, Mr. Page, disclosed information acquired by reason of his official position and, in particular, information about individual claims, obtained in confidence in connection with such claims for supplementary benefit. It would be utterly unfair to other people who are in touch with the officers of the Social Security Department to think that the information they give could be revealed to the Press in the way that this was done. It was quite shocking behaviour.
In my Answer to the hon. Gentleman I said that Mr. Page was reminded of these rules on 6th October, after the publication of his first article, and again, in writing, on 29th October, after the publication of the second article on 25th October. Despite this, he published a further article which appeared in the Spectator dated 22nd November.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to a Question on 9th February, reiterated that Mr. Page was not dismissed for the views he expressed in his articles. He was dismissed because he broke the basic rule of the Civil Service that a person does not publish articles in the Press attacking the Department in which he serves.
It may very well be that from time to time a civil servant disagrees strongly with the policy his Department is pursuing. If he feels so strongly that he wishes publicly to ventilate his disagreement, his course of conduct is surely clear. He has a perfect right to resign in order to be free to publish his criticisms, provided he is careful not to publish in those criticisms information to which he could not have had access except as a civil servant.
955 It is intolerable for anyone to feel such confidence in his own righteousness that he is entitled to break the rules of the Civil Service confidence and at the same time stay in his job and denounce the Department in which he serves. I do not see how any Government could work if civil servants were permitted to behave in that way.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should suggest here that it is proper for junior civil servants to use their own judgment as to what they say, what they publish, what information gained confidentially they use. I should have thought that he, like every other hon. Member, would have stood by the independence of the Civil Service, and recognised that if his party had been in power no other action could possibly have been taken.
So far as I know, the Member of Parliament of Mr. Robin Page is satisfied with the situation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed it with him, and why he has chosen to raise matters in the way he has this evening. It was a great disservice to the cause of our Welfare State and of the benefits made avail- 956 able to those in need by the Supplementary Benefits Commission that the hon. Gentleman should use the prestige of his position and the prestige of the House to cast doubt upon the integrity of those who are seeking to do their job well, and who I believe are doing so. He has simply added his own weight to the rumour-mongering and scandal-making which inevitably some newspapers enjoy doing, but which is grossly unfair not only to the Commission and the way in which it is doing its duty but to the vast majority of people who are helped by it. When suggestions are made that we are dealing with abuse on a massive scale it is a deterrent to those genuine people who seek the help of the Commission. The suggestion that to go to the offices of the Supplementary Benefits Commission implies that they are scroungers or skivers is grossly unfair to them.
I very much deplore that the hon. Gentleman should have raised the points he did this evening.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.