§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take stronger powers against those who receive unemployment and national assistance benefits without declaring upon what work or employment they are engaged.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, persons convicted of benefit fraud are already liable to a fine or to imprisonment for not more than three months, or to both. The maximum fine for insurance benefit franc was increased from 771 £100 to £400 under the Social Security Act 1975, and we shall seek an opportunity for bringing into line the maximum fine, at present £100, for offences involving supplementary benefit, which the noble Viscount referred to as national assistance.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many thousands of honest working people—in fact, the majority—are disgusted at the manner in which certain members of the public engage in fraud on social security? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that if there could be—I quite appreciate the difficulties—more stringent enforcement of the regulations, it would benefit the Government by bringing down their published unemployment figures, and would help in regard to public expenditure?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the noble Viscount in his Question refers specifically to supplementary benefits and unemployment benefits. Taking those two particular benefits, in 1975 13,500 cases of concealment of earnings, including those of adult dependants, were actually considered for proceedings, and there were prosecutions in 7,100 cases. No stone is left unturned in trying to bring this matter before the courts, but, in the interests of the community and everyone concerned, one has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence which can be established in a court to bring about a conviction. That is not always easy. In other cases, the amounts are so small that, if I have not misunderstood the matter, they would not really warrant proceedings being brought. But the people who are not proceeded against are dealt with in no uncertain manner by the Department of Health and Social Security. I could go on, but I will not, to show the noble Viscount that in other benefits where there has been fraud the number of prosecutions is twice the number that I have given him.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell how the number of prosecutions referred to compares with the number of prosecutions for income tax fraud known to the Revenue?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I have not come prepared to answer that question.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, aware that income tax fraud is quite another matter?
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, is he further aware that people who perpetrate an income tax fraud have at least helped the economy by producing wealth? They must have the money to indulge in an income tax fraud, whereas people receiving social security benefit fraudulently have not produced anything.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I would call in aid the noble and learned Lord, who would say that fraud is fraud.
§ Lord COLLISONMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that in some quarters public opinion as to what is a fraud is greatly exaggerated? Even if we take the total figures which the noble Lord has been given, in relation to the total number of people on supplementary benefit the number who are trying to behave fraudulently is very small.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, in order to establish the facts, may I ask that whenever a noble Lord in this House uses the term "many thousands of people" he ought to give the precise figure?
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I can give—
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)Order, order!