§ 10. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 regarding surveillance on his measures to combat benefit fraud. [115872]
§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker)The Department is working with the Home Office on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House. That will give greater assurance that my Department's surveillance activities comply with the Act.
§ Mr. RobathanWe hear a lot about joined-up government, but the Human Rights Act 1998 is another classic example of disjointed government. Two weeks ago, my office was told by a Benefits Agency official that the agency could no longer keep people under surveillance without their permission. I have checked the Benefits Agency's code of practice. The official was not quite right; I do not blame her—she was confused, as are many people. The code of practice states that officers must get written authorisation for surveillance operations, even in public places. Does the Minister agree that that is hampering the fraud investigations of the Benefits Agency? It is creating more paperwork, hampering the police and Customs too, and wasting their time. Does he further agree that the Human Rights Act will help only the criminals, whom we all want to see unable to defraud the Benefits Agency or rob the taxpayer?
§ Mr. RookerI have not heard it argued by the Opposition that we should unincorporate the European convention on human rights from our legislation.
§ Mr. RobathanWe voted against it.
§ Mr. RookerWe have not heard an argument for a repeal—[Interruption.] That is a fair point. The legislation will be important. If the Opposition are intent on committing themselves to repealing it, they should say so.
620 The hon. Gentleman's first point is valid, and misunderstandings do arise. Most of the observations carried out by officers of my Department take place in public places. They require authorisation from their superiors.
§ Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok)If my right hon. Friend is experiencing difficulty with the Human Rights Act, may I urge him to ensure that instead of investigations being suspended, they are channelled into other areas? In particular, forensic accountants should be employed to look into landlord fraud. The Human Rights Act would have no impact on that activity, and the Department could continue the pursuit of fraud, bringing many of the big criminals to justice instead of chasing small fry.
§ Mr. RookerWe are chasing small fry and big fry, including collusive employers and collusive landlords.
§ Mr. David Willetts (Havant)Let us see whether the Minister of State can defend his manifesto a little better this time. It states:
We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year.Is he aware that the Audit Commission has shown that detected housing benefit fraud was £95 million in 1998–99? That is one twentieth of the figure that Labour undertook to tackle. It is not a very good start, is it? What does the Minister of State intend to do to deliver on his manifesto promise, or is this something else that he will do only to some extent?
§ Mr. RookerThe benefits fraud inspectorate will inspect the 30 authorities that spend most on housing benefit in this country. The top 30 authorities in this country spend 30 per cent. of the £12 billion of housing benefit on checking their systems and finding out whether they are secure. Another 40 authorities will subsequently be inspected. The reports are published so that we can learn from good practice.
We must consider the effects of the Royal Mail "do not redirect" scheme. More than half our local authorities have signed up to that. Giro drops and so on were a way of ripping off housing benefit. Every local authority has remote access terminals; local authority staff can now get into Department of Social Security computers.
We are joining up the benefits system. That is the best way to stop fraud, including council tax benefit and housing benefit fraud. Although local authorities deliver those benefits, they are provided through central Government funds.