HC Deb 04 April 2000 vol 347 cc178-83WH 11.30 am
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I express my appreciation through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Madam Speaker for having given me the opportunity to initiate this debate. It concerns a subject of great importance to many people in Northern Ireland, namely the recent claims that the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland is subject to widespread abuse. However, I do not believe that the Motability issue can be taken in isolation. It must be examined as part of the wider duties of Members of Parliament who are elected to represent constituents and their interests. They are also elected to vote supply and to protect the public purse, especially from fraud.

Northern Ireland has faced a 30-year terrorist campaign in which economic warfare played a significant part, through the destruction of the business districts of our towns and cities. There has also been the growth of a mentality among those who opposed the Government that they should take as much as they could from the state. This, coupled with the various terrorist groups' protection rackets and other illegal money-raising activities, led to the establishment of a Mafia state in many parts of the Province, despite the best efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. To make matters worse, the black economy has grown as more and more people have sought to defraud the taxpayer by doing the double and claiming benefit to which they are not entitled.

The central service agency has 1,805,812 people registered with it, yet Northern Ireland's population is only a little more than 1,700,000. Who are the extra 100,000 people? Where are they? What is being done to discover the reason for the imbalance and to root out the fraud that doubtless accounts for much of the discrepancy? It is against that wider background that we must examine the circumstances in which the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland finds itself.

The scheme benefits 22,000 people in Northern Ireland who receive disability living allowance. It therefore provides some of the most vulnerable people in society with the means to get about and lead a semblance of a normal life. In early March, Motability wrote to all the people in Northern Ireland who benefit under the scheme to inform them that the future of the scheme in the Province was in doubt due to suspicion of widespread fraud and abuse, including claims that some of its cars have been used as taxis and for drug smuggling. I was told in a letter from Motability that some people anecdotally refer to our cars as "DSS taxis". That is the world in which we live and I am trying to find out more about it.

Some of the statistics that I received from Motability are quite staggering. For example, the vehicle accident rate for the scheme in Northern Ireland is more than double that for the rest of the United Kingdom. Settled claims awards in Northern Ireland are almost treble the amount elsewhere in the UK, and 72 per cent. of the scheme's personal injury claims in Northern Ireland involve seven or more people, compared to 28 per cent. in the rest of the UK. As a result, insurance losses alone amount to some £650 per lease, effectively costing disabled people using the scheme in the remainder of the United Kingdom some £70 per lease and raising serious questions about the scheme's long-term viability in Northern Ireland.

After I heard from constituents and others in the Province who were concerned about the letter that they had received, I wrote to Motability, to the Department of Social Security and to the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland. The DSS said that it was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department. On the other hand, Motability is a charity. Does it receive any public money, or is everything that it does done through the disability living allowance? I happen to believe that when a fraud is being perpetrated on our community, even if it is a stand-alone charity that depends on public funds, there must be some accountability to the House. These allegations have caused a great deal of distress to many people throughout Northern Ireland, including my constituents.

On 21 March, after I received a letter that had been delayed in the post, I saw an edition of "Spotlight" on BBC Northern Ireland that raised the issue of a suspected widespread fraud and abuse in the operation of the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland. It made for interesting viewing. It even included footage of a car belonging to a Sinn Fein Member of the now suspended Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr. Alex Maskey, parked outside Castle buildings, Stormont. Anyone who has seen Mr. Maskey will wonder just how he qualifies as disabled. I understand that he had an injury in the past, but certainly there are folk who would love to be disabled if that constitutes disability. His mobility seems to be unimpaired. He does not appear to have any difficulty in getting around. He also refused to answer questions unless he could see them in advance and consult his solicitor.

I accept that there may be problems in the way that the Motability scheme operates in some parts of Northern Ireland. However, I cannot accept that the only course of action is to abandon the whole system and punish the innocent along with the guilty. Surely someone, whether in the insurance world or in Motability itself, could carry out some checks. Why are insurance claims made for cars with annual mileages of over 30,000 that suddenly are burnt? In the normal run, that would be a high mileage for a Motability car. Is it just anecdotal that two Motability cars with five passengers in each managed to bump into each other with resulting claims for whiplash and so on? Such claims should be investigated much more carefully. That is preferable to paying out and then challenging innocent people that, if these things do not stop, the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland will have to be stopped.

I know some of the dodges that have gone on in the past. By now, the people who work in insurance and in Motability and, for that matter, those who administer disability living allowance should also have an idea of what is going on. Such abuse and misuse must be rooted out and reported to the lawful authorities, so that a proper investigation can be carried out and the guilty brought to justice. In Great Britain there have been successful prosecutions of people who have defrauded Motability. Why has this not happened in Northern Ireland? I understand from Motability that a major investigation is under way but surely these offences should have been drawn to the attention of the police much earlier. The innocent should have nothing to fear and should not be caused alarm and distress. Let us not forget that these people are some of society's most vulnerable.

have alluded to one of the main problems, which is that no one seems prepared to accept responsibility for the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland except Motability itself. I raised the matter with the Department of Social Security and was told to refer it to the—erstwhile—Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I have no difficulty with the introduction of better controls and eligibility checks to ensure that only those who are genuinely entitled to benefit from the Motability scheme do so. However, I object to the tone and the manner in which the issue has been raised. The suggestion that they be deprived of an asset that enables them to live a reasonably mobile life has created an atmosphere of fear and alarm among many totally innocent people.

I should like to know who has responsibility for rooting out fraud and corruption in the operation of the Motability scheme particularly and in the public sector generally. 1 urge those in charge of the Motability scheme in the Province, and anyone else who has information about or evidence of fraud or abuse, to present it to the police. The bad apples can be then weeded out and dealt with in the courts instead of every person in receipt of Motability benefit being stigmatised by unproven allegations and living in fear of the scheme being withdrawn. I have had anonymous letters from people living in difficult areas who support tightening up but are concerned that they and others will suffer if, as rumour has it, the scheme is withdrawn. Where there is a pattern of abuse, the people who administer the compensation and the insurance should be cautioned to take care rather than pay out the easy way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of cases in the past 30 years of people who had jobs awaiting them who simultaneously obtained social security benefits for their families. We were told that families were not receiving social security benefits when they were, and we were later told that to have admitted it would have endangered the life of some official. Surely such a decision should have been taken at ministerial level, not by an official.

11.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on raising this important issue. His comments show that he agrees that Motability plays an important part in some disabled people's lives and in some instances provides a vital service by giving them greater mobility. He has said that we should be careful to ensure that the scheme remains available to all disabled people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who have a genuine need. Currently 21,700 people benefit from it.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Department for Social Development did not have direct responsibility for Motability, which is a voluntary, nonprofit-making organisations. However, as he asked a question, I should tell him that Motability received for 1999–2000 a grant of £4.7 million from the Exchequer towards administration costs which included a contribution from the North Ireland Office.

As the hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly said, we pay the mobility component of the disability living allowance to Motability at the customer's request. I accept that, because we do so, we have a responsibility to ensure that payments are not fraudulently misused. It is important to put the situation in Northern Ireland into context. It has been alleged that fraud and abuse is higher in Northern Ireland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman referred to a recent television programme and a letter sent to all customers by the director of Motability. However, disability living allowance fraud in Northern Ireland is about 2.4 per cent., which is lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the statistics relative to the size of the population. I wrote to him on that complex matter yesterday, and I do not have time to go into it in detail now. However, I hope that my letter will enlighten him on the source of the discrepancies between the two sets of statistics that he quoted.

It is wrong to portray Northern Ireland as more involved in social security fraud than other parts of the United Kingdom, but having said that, it is important not to take that statement as a sign of complacency. In the past two years, there has been considerable investment in tackling benefit fraud, resulting in savings of about £72 million, which should rightly be spent on vital public services.

In the financial year that has just ended, 341 people were prosecuted for benefit fraud, although not in respect of the benefits that we are discussing. However, it shows how seriously the Government take the issue. The emphasis must be on preventing fraud. As a result of our efforts to reduce DLA fraud in Northern Ireland, the number of rejected claims has increased and the number of applications has fallen. That shows that a message has gone out; people realise that fraud is unacceptable and that, if they make fraudulent applications, they are likely to be caught. There is no other explanation for the fall in applications and the increase in applications rejected.

I want briefly to return to the letter dated March 2000, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, from Mr. Noel Muddiman, the director of Motability, to all customers. The letter threatened to review the scheme's operation in the Province and stated: If we are unable to drastically reduce the level of fraud and abuse in Northern Ireland…this could include the option of Motability totally closing down the scheme in the Province. As I said, benefit fraud in Northern Ireland is lower than it is in the United Kingdom, partly as a result of the action taken to detect fraud. Twenty-one cases of suspected fraud were referred to Motability in the year that has just ended. Three of those concerned received written warnings, one person's car was removed completely, one person's lease was not renewed and three cases were unproven. The remainder of the cases are still under investigation. It is clear that action is taken and that the strongest possible action is taken in proven cases as regards the use of the car.

It was unfortunate that Motability singled out Northern Ireland—in particular because our officials had advised it that doing so would be inaccurate and misleading. Of course, no circumstances justify fraud, and I would not seek to do so. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Motability customers are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, genuine and deserving cases.

I want to respond directly to the allegations made in the recent television programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In common with all right-thinking people, I deplore any abuse in the Motability scheme. Our officials work closely with Motability, and we are determined that that will continue. Motability is investigating the cases highlighted in the programme, and it will pass its findings to the RUC if it feels that it is appropriate to do so.

I had not intended to refer directly to any of the allegations, and I am sure that you understand that it would be inappropriate for me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some of those matters are under investigation. However, I should slightly correct one point that the hon. Gentleman made about Assembly Member Alex Maskey. As I understand it, there was no suggestion that Alex Maskey was disabled; the programme suggested that he was a nominated driver for a disabled person. I do not say that to undermine any investigation into the use of the car, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment. However, it is important that we get the specific nature of the allegation right. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not seeking maliciously to misinform anyone, but he might inadvertently have done so.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Did I understand the Minister to say that Mr. Maskey was the nominated driver for a disabled person? I want to be clear about the arrangement because it is part of the problem. Nominated drivers are using cars for their own purposes, rather than to drive people who have the right to use them.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman is right—I did use the phrase "nominated driver". I did so to make it absolutely clear that Alex Maskey is a nominated driver for a disabled person. I do not want to go into the complexities of why he was using the car when the programme was filmed, because I do not have the information to hand. That would be inappropriate, given that the issue might be the subject of an investigation.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that no one in Northern Ireland is prepared to take responsibility for investigating abuses. I have given him some statistics to demonstrate that that responsibility has been taken on and that it is being taken seriously. The Social Security Agency is not directly responsible, but it works directly with Motability to improve co-operation on the scheme through an arrangement to which I shall refer in a moment. It is important to urge them to continue to work together.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I welcome those assurances. My concern is on two levels. First, did Motability refer any of the issues to the police? No prosecutions were undertaken. I could understand it if people were not found guilty in court, because the case would have to be proved, but I cannot understand why no prosecutions have been undertaken. Secondly, I am worried that some folk in the public service are not taking care in carrying out their work. I asked the Minister how many people were on the central service agency's registers and a clever person gave me a list of doctors, for which I had not asked.

Mr. Howarth

On the latter point, that response was a genuine mistake. It was an inaccurate answer to a parliamentary written question. Although officials provided the information, I take responsibility for the answer. I would not blacken the name of officials. My experience of working with civil servants in Departments in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office is positive. I am grateful for the help and support that I receive.

As for the lack of prosecutions, Motability and the Social Security Agency work closely with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The hon. Gentleman will understand that such cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Nevertheless, appropriately drastic action was taken in some of the 21 cases to which I referred. The matter is taken seriously, but getting enough evidence to remove an individual from the scheme requires a level of proof different from that required for a court case. However, I am sure that that option has not been ruled out when appropriate evidence is available, and I would want it to be kept as an option in such cases.

I am mindful of concerns about the operation of the scheme and of my responsibilities. I have established a task force of departmental officials and Motability representatives to consider ways in which co-operation, which is already good, can be improved and the scheme can be made even less open to fraud and abuse. I shall keep a close eye on that work; I hope that that will improve matters. Although that step is necessary, we should not take a disproportionate view of the problem. The hon. Gentleman rightly conceded that the overwhelming majority of people who receive vehicles through Motability are in genuine need. They are proper and deserving cases. It would be wrong to start a campaign against people who are legitimately in receipt of help. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. However, by the same token, it is important that evidence of systematic abuse or abuse by individuals is properly investigated and, if proven, appropriate action taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we take such matters seriously and, where sensible or necessary, act appropriately.