HC Deb 26 May 1972 vol 837 cc1885-900

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

I rise with some diffidence, as the disadvantage of having the last debate before the Whitsun Recess is that it seems that only the Minister and I stand between everybody and the Whitsun Recess. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity of ventilating in the House an issue which needs to be aired because of the considerable public disquiet which has been expressed in the Press and elsewhere about the role of special investigators employed by the Department of Health and Social Security.

Shortly after I was elected a Member of Parliament in 1970, one of the first constituency cases I had affected a young, somewhat inarticulate woman with three children. It was alleged that she was cohabiting and should therefore be denied supplementary benefit. There was not a total withdrawal of supplementary benefit, but it was reduced to £3 a week. The evidence appeared to be based largely on the usual inquiries that are under. taken by the special investigators—surveillance of the property, discussions with neighbours and the rest. She denied totally that she was cohabiting with the man concerned, and he supported that denial. There was, therefore, a complete conflict of evidence. She went to appeal and failed.

It seemed to me that this was not tilt, sort of woman who could have adequately probed and challenged the evidence of the special investigator. It may be—I cast no reflections on the tribunal concerned since I was not there and do not know—that the chairman of the tribunal might have made adequate inquiries and cross-examined the special investigator. Clearly, that is not always the case.

The feeling I had in this instance was that the woman felt at a disadvantage, appearing as she did unrepresented before that tribunal. She was expected to keep three children who were totally innocent victims—children of her previous marriage—and to pay a rent of £3, because it was assumed that the man with whom she was alleged to be cohabiting was offering her some financial help, which was denied by both parties. The man involved denied it because he said he could not afford to maintain that household as well as his own.

I am happy to say that after a considerable amount of pressure the Supplementary Benefits Commission increased the allowance to £9, but this happened only after a very great deal of pressure and with some reluctance on the part of the commission. It may be that I was particularly zealous at that time, and I can only hope that my zealousness in seeking after injustices has not diminished.

By this time the rent of this lady's GLC flat had fallen into arrears, and the GLC was not particularly helpful. The woman felt distinctly uncomfortable, living as she did in a block of flats in which her neighbours had been called on to give evidence—hearsay evidence—against her. She thought that she had been spied on, as a result of which for some time at least the children were denied certain basic essentials. It was a case that caused me to think hard about the whole concept lying behind the cohabitation rule. I understand that a real dilemma is posed in such cases. I recognise, as does the Minister—and certainly the Supplementary Benefits Commission recognises in its report—that there is something unpleasant about intimate inquiries being undertaken into the private lives of divorced women and deserted wives. On the other hand, one recognises the view that one must safeguard society against abuses of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme and of other aspects of the Welfare State and knows that women who are cohabitating can be supported by their lovers. Therefore, any abuse of the system means that the taxpayer is the "fall guy". Clearly, there is a conflict of views on this matter.

These questions were fully investigated as the Secretary of State told the House the other day, in the report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Although it is an excellent report, I am not totally satisfied that the questions posed have been satisfactorily resolved or that in most instances the proper criteria for measuring abuses have been applied.

Should there be a rule concerning cohabitation? At first sight there seems to be little justification for it because neither at Common Law nor by Statute has a man any legal obligation to maintain his mistress or her children, unless those children are also his own. It is only fairly recently that any reasonableness has been brought into the law in regard to affiliation proceedings to ensure that a father should maintain his illegitimate children on a reasonable basis. But it may be that one should consider changing the law in this regard and that a man should have a legal obligation to maintain the woman with whom he is cohabitating outside marriage. However, that is not an issue which falls to be discussed today. It is a much wider one.

Having said that, on balance, I have come to the conclusion that there is justification for the cohabitation rule. The main basis of the commission's conclusions, with which I agree, is that without it the unmarried couple who are cohabiting would be placed in a more favourable position than the married couple.

What it comes to always is a matter of balance. There is a need to ensure that the woman who has not established a stable relationship outside marriage, whatever may be the view of the special investigator or of the tribunal, should not be placed in real financial and social jeopardy. Yet we must not get to the situation where she is placed in a more favourable position than the married woman.

We have very real difficulties in practice. There is no difficulty where people are living together outside marriage having formed a stable family and financial relationship, and where they admit it. The difficulties arise where they do not admit it and where there is some doubt about the relationship that they have formed, where there are the serious disputes to which I referred earlier in the case affecting my constituent, and where there is a conflict of evidence as to the nature of the relationship—are they living together as man and wife, are they sharing the household expenses, are they living in and sharing the same accommodation, and are they sleeping together?

These are matters which were highlighted by the Supplementary Benefits Commission's report. It conceded that mistakes and abuses would arise. It said that it employed a large number of people, and we now know that it employs 286 investigators. Obviously, it would be unfair to expect a higher standard from those employees than we do from the police or anyone else in the public service. The commission conceded that errors and abuses arose, but not to the extent that critics of the scheme claimed. I believe that the truth lies somewhere between what the Supplementary Benefits Commission states and the views of the critics.

There has been a distinct advantage in probing the Department, both in Questions and, I hope, in this debate, in order to highlight abuses, but perhaps more importantly to intensify the safeguards which can be applied for the public, and constantly to ensure that there is an improvement of standards. It is one of the benefits of our parliamentary system that we are able to do that.

It is fair to say, as I am sure the Minister will, that abuses and errors arise only in a minority of cases of the work undertaken by his Department and by special investigators particularly. But what is not sufficiently understood and recognised in the commission's report is the untold harm, albeit in a minority of cases, that is done where errors and abuses arise in this very sensitive area. Real danger and damage can be caused to the families affected, who are often the most deprived families in our community.

I do not believe that the resentment and the consequences have been sufficiently appreciated. It follows, therefore, that there is a tremendously heavy burden on special investigators to carry out their inquiries carefully, reasonably and tactfully so as to minimise that resentment and the distress that these accusations necessarily cause. They must not be overzealous in their work. They must understand that inquiry of this sort must be undertaken delicately. They must not be over-zealous in prosecuting immorality. They must not adopt overbearing or intimidating postures.

I do not want it to be thought that I am claiming that the majority of special investigators do those things—they do not—but I am sure that there is a minority who do not apply the highest standards.

The Child Poverty Action Group has published a report which throws some doubt upon the efficacy of the work of some investigators. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it is a little unfair constantly to refer to them as snoopers. One passage in the report said that women who had been interviewed considered that some of the inquirers had been uncivil, insensitive, and some even obscene. Some of the evidence adduced —I do not suggest that it ought to be accepted in its entirety; it is subject to doubt, of course—must cause us concern and is worthy of further investigation.

This is the sort of inquiry which was alleged to have been made of one woman: "Well, have you not got a man lined up yet? Thought you would by now." A woman alleges that the investigator said: "Get your boy friend to look after you. You are not having your social security book back", and she went on to say that he "snatched my book off me and, after a few nasty remarks, he left. I was treated like dirt." One woman said that it was suggested that she become a prostitute, and so on.

I do not know how valuable or how true that sort of evidence is, but I do know from my own knowledge of complaints which come to me at my surgery, not so much about special investigators but about the usual day-to-day practice in offices of the Department, that people are often most disquieted about the treatment which they receive. Sometimes, I believe, the complainants are wrong. But they are not always wrong. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Department to do its utmost to ensure that it maintains the highest administrative standards.

Not only have I noted what is said by the Child Poverty Action Group, but I have had similar cases put and similar anxieties expressed to me by colleagues. In addition, the National Council for Civil Liberties and Shelter have expressed doubts about the scheme itself.

There can be no doubt that the closest inquiry ought to be undertaken by the Department into these matters. There were criticisms in the report of the Child Poverty Action Group about the informality of the tribunals. As a lawyer, I do not like informal tribunals, because it is contrary to my training. I recognise that it is sometimes argued that a very formal tribunal is more intimidating than an informal tribunal, but I doubt that, and I think that informal tribunals may sometimes get into a hopeless mess. But whatever the situation, doubts have been expressed about it in this report.

I am also concerned about the admissibility in these matters of hearsay evidence. This is part of the argument about informality, I suppose, but the fact is that the rules against admissibility of hearsay evidence in court proceedings were introduced for a very good reason, namely, that such evidence could not be easily challenged by an accused person. In a sense, a person involved in proceedings before a tribunal of this kind is an accused person. There is no way of challenging hearsay evidence, particularly when it is based upon information supplied by neighbours, employers and so on. I am not at all satisfied that that is right or just. I believe there ought to be a stricter code of legal rules for these tribunals.

I also believe that the tribunals do not place sufficient emphasis on what they are supposed to—that is, the stable nature of the relationship between the man and woman concerned. Evidence in regard to this should be the paramount concern of the tribunals. I believe that they place too much emphasis on the sexual relationship.

I put some specific questions to the Minister which arise from what I have said. First, we must be satisfied as to the nature of the people who are recruited to do this work. I would think that in the main they are people who are qualified to do it, but the public are entitled to know about the selection procedure. What is the nature of their training? I am afraid that in this particular respect, the Supplementary Benefits Commission report was less than forthcoming. Why have the Government been so loth to publish the handbook which is given to special investigators and which the Daily Mail has now given partial publicity? In many respects that newspaper is to be congratulated on that. The handbook is known as the A-X code. Is it true that special investigators have been told in that code to seek information from neighbours, landlords and employers and to listen to gossip, as was reported in the Daily Mail? Would not publication help to eliminate the suspicions which no doubt the Department would consider have been evoked without justification? Are some of the inquiries of neighbours which are undertaken by special investigators justified to the full extent to which they are pursued? Is not this likely to encourage informers and to discourage what one seeks to achieve in a community such as a local authority estate—namely, good neighbourliness? Are not these matters which ought to be the concern of those carrying out these inquiries?

Similarly, too many landlords always think that there is never smoke without fire. A very great danger to the relationship between landlord and tenant can be created by probing of this kind, and sometimes, it must be remembered the allegations are not borne out.

Also, regarding inquiries made of employers, cannot suspicion imperil the employment prospects of the man or woman concerned?

My next question is why, before the tribunal proceedings, the burden of proof cannot be stricter than it is. Why should it be dealt with on a balance of probabilities—in other words, that it appears that the people are cohabiting? Why should not this allegation be proved beyond reasonable doubt? After all, in divorce cases where adultery is alleged the adultery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Minister should indicate why the rules should not be stricter than they are.

Is the Minister satisfied that people are always made aware of their right to appeal? I understand that last year there were some 20,000 cases under appeal. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will correct me. In many of those cases, because these people are so deprived and inarticulate they need help in challenging the evidence with which they are confronted. Therefore, there is a real need for organisations like the Claimants Union, which sometimes carries out its work with moderation and is helpful, and, at other times, is not, I readily concede. However, something of this kind is needed to assist the people who challenge the evidence. It is true that they can bring along a friend to help present their case, but that assistance is not always readily available. There is no form of legal aid and, therefore, they cannot afford legal representation.

Is there not a strong case for women who are affected by these findings knowing the case against them and being able to retain the benefit until the case is proved against them? I had a letter concerning a lady—I shall not reveal her name—and it was said of her that she was not a very intelligent mother of two dependent children. She went to collect her weekly supplementary benefit on a Friday. The Post Office said that for reasons unknown to it her book had been stopped. By the time she had recovered from the shock, the local office of the Department of Health and Social Security was shut and she had to exist over the weekend with no money. She went to the office of the Department on the Monday morning, when her book was handed back with apologies. The officials thought she had got married and had therefore instructed the Post Office to stop payment. So a total injustice was done to this woman.

That is quite wrong. If we were to alter the rule this would be of considerable advantage because it would avoid that sort of situation. Should not tribunals exercise their power to reduce rather than withdraw benefit where a case is made out to a much greater extent than is done at present?

The next question is of paramount concern. Does the Minister consider that sufficient priority is attached to the needs of children? There has been some mitigation in the past two weeks or so because where there is hardship, as I understand the position, benefit can now be paid for four weeks even when a case is made out. But is not that rather trivial? Should not much more emphasis be placed on the innocent victims of the situation.

The Minister must justify the burden of establishing this vast bureaucracy. There has been a substantial increase in special investigators since 1964. There were 97 in 1964 and there are now 286. Is it all worth while, taking into account that they spend only one-third of their time on inquiries of this sort?

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Minister said that the annual average salary cost was £2,200 per investigator and that the Department was saving £8,000 per investigator as a result of that work. That does not take into account the overheads, the petty cash disbursements, the secretarial salaries, stationery, the overheads of the tribunals, rents and the rest of it. That seems to have been totally overlooked in that answer.

I express considerable doubt about the enocomic viability of the whole matter. I understand that it is not the sole issue. Difficulties exist and I have tried to point them out. However, I cannot help feeling that sometimes the priorities become somewhat distorted.

It is all too easy for the public to become very emotional and very angry about illicit sexual relationships and for a Government to respond to that sort of pressure. But why are the public not prepared to exercise more pressure about defaulting fathers and husbands? I am told that the Home Office does not even know what are the figures of orders in magistrates' courts in cases where there has been default. Why is so much more attention directed to resolved——

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put

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

Mr. Davis

Why is so much more attention directed to resolving abuses of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, than to the machinations of the wealthy and of big business to set up substantial means of avoiding, or perhaps I should say mitigating, their obligations to society in regard to tax and so on?

I think the priorities arc a little wrong. A great deal needs to be done, and I hope that the value of this debate will have been to ensure that some of the objectives I listed earlier might he more readily attained

4.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)

As the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has said, we have the last word before the recess. I am glad he has raised this subject in a quiet and responsible manner because it gives an opportunity to deal with some of the misleading publicity. particularly about cohabitation, which has appeared in recent weeks, and also some of the unfair attacks on the staff who diligently and tactfully in the vast majority of cases do the difficult and delicate job which Parliament has laid upon them.

I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman did not use some of the very emotive phrases which have been used in the Press in recent weeks because phrases such as "snoopers" may well cause unnecessary anxiety among women who are entitled to benefit and may deter them from applying for help. That is the last thing we wish in circumstances of this kind. Those who are entitled to help and who are caring for children without the support of a husband are entitled not only to our sympathy but also to the practical help which the Supplementary Benefits Commission is able to give.

In cohabitation cases the commission is not interested in people's sex lives or in making moral judgments since the law requires them to treat the married couple and the unmarried couple cohabiting as man and wife in precisely the same way. Its interest is purely factual. Does cohabitation exist? Is there a stable relationship? Are the couple, in effect, living as man and wife—because, if so, the woman and her children should not be supported by the taxpayer but by the man, if he is working, just as the working husband is expected to support his wife and children? Without the cohabitation rule the cohabiting couple would be more favourably treated than the man and wife, and that is why this rule has to be. I am very glad that on balance the hon. Gentleman supported it for that amongst other reasons. But there is a real dilemma, and I accept that, it exists dealing as we are in this very delicate area.

I will try to deal with some of the questions which the hon. Gentleman put to me. First, he asked who does the job of our special investigators. They are the people who investigate the more complex and time-consuming cases of suspected fraud which cannot be dealt with by staff in local offices without detriment to normal day-to-day work. They are attached to regional offices which control their work and direct them to different local offices as required. They have no special powers, for example of entry or search or anything else. They are ordinary executive officers of the Department who volunteer for this specialised work, stay on it for about five years, and are then assigned to other work. They are already experienced in supplementary benefit work before they become special investigators, and they work at first with an experienced special investigator before doing work on their own. They also attend a seminar before working on their own, in which the reasons for the scheme, the Judges' Rules and how they apply in such cases, and the way in which they should conduct themselves generally are put across to them.

The number of special investigators has been growing in recent years. They were first appointed by the National Assistance Board in 1954. when the number was 16. In 1964 the number was 97. On 1st April, 1970, the number was 270, and from 1st June. 1971, the number of posts was increased to 298. Thus it can be seen that the increase in authorised posts under the present Administration so far has been 28. Another 28 posts have been authorised from June of this year. This will bring the number to 326. The latest available figures of staff in post is 286, which means that there are 12 posts unfilled. The hon. Gentleman will see that the increases took place under both Administrations.

The work of the special investigators falls into three main categories of fraud on supplementary benefit—working while drawing benefit, which is the most numerous category; cohabitation: and fictitious desertion.

The analysis of work and amounts saved in 1971 is as follows. Of the cases investigated 38 per cent. were co- habitation, 9 per cent. were fictitious desertion, and 53 per cent. were working while drawing benefit. The gross saving in 1971 was just over £2 million, of which about £887,000 refers to cohabitation. These figures cannot take into account the deterrent effect which the work of the investigators might have on others.

Mr. Davis

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £887,000 is a gross figure and not a net saving?

Mr. Dean

Yes. I have given a gross figure of over £2 million for all the cases. The net figure, taking into account salaries and expenses, is rather over £1 million for the three categories.

The number of cases in 1971 can be analysed as follows. Of the total of 22,150 cases investigated 8,426 were cohabitation. In 3,787 the allowances were withdrawn or reduced. That figure represents 45 per cent. of the cases investigated. In other words, in 55 per cent. the allowances were not withdrawn or reduced. Those are the basic figures.

Suspicion of fraud will have arisen first in the course of normal checks in the processing and review of a claim, a home visit, information from another office, such as the employment exchange, or a letter, signed or anonymous, from a member of the public, which might be malicious or true. The case will be referred to the special investigator because the local office has not been able to resolve it satisfactorily. The typical cases are suspicion that a claimant or his wife are working for an unknown employer, that a husband who has allegedly deserted his wife is at home, or that a woman claimant is cohabiting with a man as his wife.

The hon. Member asked: why not publish these regulations so that everyone may know the instructions under which the special investigators work? As my right hon. Friend said on 9th May in answer to a Question by the hon. Gentleman, to expose the detailed methods used by the special investigators would make it easier for the comparatively small number of people who abuse the arrangement. It is for that reason that instructions to the staff in this field and in other fields are not made public.

But the hon. Gentleman will agree that the information that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has, particularly in recent years, made available to claimants and prospective claimants is much more valuable to those people than detailed and technical instructions to staff. The hon. Member referred to the publication from the commission on cohabitation and on how the cohabitation rule works. A number of other publications have come out in recent years, and there is also a general handbook which is made available to claimants and to those who are likely to be claimants to assist them, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman that making information available in this form is very much more valuable to claimants or prospective claimants than are very detailed technical instructions.

The hon. Member asked to what extent inquiries are made of neighbours, landlords, employers, and the like. It is true that in some of the more difficult cases where a suspicion cannot be resolved one way or the other it is necessary on occasion for discreet inquiries to be made in the neighbourhood in much the same way as the police might make inquiries where a breach of the law was suspected. But the special investigator must have two aims in mind; not to prejudice the suspected person by letting it be known that he or she is being investigated, nor, if it is thought that the person is committing fraud, to put him on guard and so enable him to evade detection.

Mr. Davis

But the distinction between the police inquiry and subsequent trial and this procedure is that at a trial the evidence has been adduced in its totality, whereas with this procedure hearsay evidence is introduced which cannot be challenged.

Mr. Dean

I take that point, but let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions in the order in which he asked them. On this point, special investigators have no authority to question children, and if the hon. Member or anyone else has evidence that this has happened I shall be glad' to look at the case.

If the inquiries I have briefly described cannot prove fraud or provide a firm base for altering entitlement, if they do not carry the matter further, that is the end of it. If they confirm suspicion, the investigation will be continued. It is sometimes alleged that at this point, or even before it, the allowance will be withdrawn. That is not so, or certainly should not be so. The special investigator, having established the facts, confronts the claimant with them and scrupulously follows the Judge's Rules in administering the appropriate cautions at the proper time. The allowance is not withdrawn until the special investigator has concluded that cohabitation is established.

A point that particularly concerned the hon. Gentleman related to the proceedings in the appeal tribunals, and the like. There is a big distinction here, as I am sure he will know better than I do, between the proceedings taken against a person for, say, fraud, which would take place in a court of law in the normal way, and the withdrawal of a benefit to which a person would appear after investigation not to be entitled. In the case of proceedings for fraud, it is entirely right and proper, if the Department feels that it is appropriate, that the case should be proceeded with in the normal way, where the normal rules of evidence, and the like, apply. Here we are dealing with something rather different. It is important that every claimant should know of her right of appeal and be encouraged to use it if she feels that the commission's decision is unfair. But it would not be right, I submit, to go on paying full benefit until the appeal is heard. The commission's officers have to make a judgment based on the facts of the case as to whether the couple are cohabiting. They do not do so without carefully considering all the evidence but once they have concluded that there is cohabitation the allowance in payment has to be withdrawn since on the face of it the woman is no longer entitled to it.

To continue full benefit pending an appeal would be to encourage an appeal in every case however obvious it might be that the couple were cohabiting because it would enable them to obtain a few more weeks of benefit. If the appeal were decided in the commission's favour it would be impractical to recover those weeks of benefit but if the benefit is stopped and the appeal goes in favour of the claimant arrears can always be paid.

To avoid hardship, and this was a point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the commission has recently decided that when the woman has children who are not those of the man, benefit will if necessary continue to be paid at a modified rate for the children's requirements for a period of four weeks to ease the adjustment whereby the man takes responsibility for the whole family. This applies whether or not a claimant appeals.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are bound to be difficult cases of judgment and dilemmas in administering delicate rules applying to personal situations of this kind. I am not for one moment claiming that in every single case the right balance is struck between doing our utmost to help those who are in need and are entitled to benefit on the one hand and, at the same time, safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer on the other. Equally we have to be very careful that we do not get into a position where a man and woman cohabiting as man and wife are to be more favourably treated than a husband and wife. I am sure this is something which would not be acceptable to the country as a whole.

I am sure that this debate introduced so moderately by the hon. Gentleman will assist in bringing the real facts of the situation and the dilemmas of the situation to the public as a whole. There is no doubt that ventilations of this kind assist the commission and the officers who do this particularly delicate work, especially when as on this occasion the debate has been conducted in such a fair and responsible manner by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Four o'clock till Monday, 5th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday