§ Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Derek Peter Deevy was able to make fraudulent claims for social security benefits totalling £36,000 over a period of seven years; what changes he proposes to make in the checking and investigation of claims for benefit in the light of this case; and whether he will 295W now increase the number of special investigators employed by his Department to investigate suspicious claims.
§ Mr. OrmeMy right hon. Friend and I are deeply disturbed by this case and have called for a full enquiry into the circumstances of it.
Effective action against social security fraud is not a party matter. People who pay their taxes and national insurance contributions rightly expect Governments to secure that social security payments go only to those for whom they are intended. And I am sure that we shall be supported in all parts of the House, and by the general public, in our determination to crack down on those who seek to live off our society by swindling our social security schemes.
Successive Governments have grappled with this problem and a good deal of action has already been taken. As the hon. Member states, the present case goes back over a period of seven years. During the previous Administration the Fisher Committee was set up and reported in 1973. Action on its report began under the previous Government and this has been continued by the present Government. Last year we set up a specialist Headquarters Unit to direct the Department's operations in this field. The number of prosecutions has doubled over the past five years from 7,700 in 1970 to 15,350 in 1975. The number of special investigators has increased from 290 in 1973 to 370 in 1976 and there are now some 500 specialist fraud staff in our local offices, together with specialist sections in each of our regional offices.
Nevertheless, before this case came to light my right hon. Friend had already asked me to take a fresh look at the steps the Department takes to prevent and detect fraudulent claims. He has now asked me to pay particular regard to any lessons we can learn from the Deevy case. Sweeping allegations, unsupported by evidence, are of no use to us, but we investigate all specific allegations of fraud, and we will gladly consider practical suggestions from any source about ways in which social security fraud can be tackled more effectively.
We shall certainly consider what changes need to be made to our procedures in the light of our examination 296W of the Deevy case and the wide-ranging review on which our specialist branch is now engaged. But counter-measures against fraud and abuse cannot be considered in isolation. My Department is responsible for some 18 million benefit payments each week. The staff carry out this enormous task with great skill and devotion and none more so than those who are engaged in the fight against the swindlers. But every additional safeguard against fraud needs extra staff and makes life that much more difficult for genuine claimants. A balance has to be struck. We shall act as vigorously as we can to protect our social security schemes from those who set out to defraud them, but we shall not be stampeded by indignation over this case to take measures that would result in unacceptable treatment of perfectly honest people.