§ Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there is included as fraud in the fraud statistics of his Department cases where a person has got money from his Department fraudulently, has been detected and made to repay the amount, but not prosecuted.
§ Mr. OrmeSuch cases are not recorded separately but would be included as appropriate in records of overpayment and prosecution.
§ Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what publications have been issued to officers of his Department on how to recognise fraud in the last six months.
§ Mr. OrmeThere is a continuous flow of guidance and instructions issued to officers administering social security schemes, and, whenever appropriate, staff are reminded of fraud risk and given advice on steps to combat such risks.
§ Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons in the latest 12 months for which figures are available were charged with an offence involving social security benefits following investigation by a local office fraud officer, or a special investigator, and were not subsequently prosecuted.
§ Mr. OrmeIn 1976 there were some 20,700 cases in which a person was interviewed under caution and subsequently it was decided not to prosecute.
§ Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Depart 682W ment includes in the fraud statistics those persons who, having been discovered improperly drawing benefits, then repay the amount they improperly drew.
§ Mr. OrmeLocal offices keep detailed records of overpayments and refunds but no central record is kept.
§ Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what cases his Department considers ignorance of the conditions upon which social security benefits are drawn a sufficient explanation for improperly drawing such benefits.
§ Mr. OrmeEach case is considered on its merits. One important factor in considering whether or not benefit which has been improperly paid shall be recovered, or whether in such a case there are grounds for prosecution, is the question of intent. If the good faith of the person is not in doubt prosecution is unlikely.