§ Mr. Duncan SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions have followed from calls made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since May 1997; and what the total annual saving arising from the Benefit Fraud Hotline has been since its establishment. [75849]
§ Mr. TimmsAdministration of the Benefit Fraud hotline is the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 12 March 1999:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of prosecutions which have followed from calls made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since May 1997; and what the total annual saving arising form the Benefit Fraud Hotline has been since its establishment.Investigations by the Benefits Agency, which include cases which start as a Hotline referrals, have led to 8,417 prosecutions in the year to date (to the end of January 1999.) Figures for referrals, in each month since May 1997 are provided in the attached table. Figures for the number of these referrals that then result in prosecutions have only been recorded since January 1999.480WThe total Weekly Benefit Savings achieved by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline since its launch in August 1996 to date (to end of January 1999) is £108.9m.I hope you find this reply helpful.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline Number of cases referred to Departmental Solicitors for prosecution in each month since May 1997 following Hotline referrals. Year Month Cases referred for Prosecution 1997 May 45 June 71 July 61 August 31 September 6 October 40 November 67 December 12 1998 January 41 February 25 March 28 April 3 May 65 June 26 July 16 August 87 September 2 October 13 November 50 December 14 1999 January 8 Total 711
§ Mr. FieldTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definitions of high and low suspicion of fraud are used for categorising cases in the Area Benefit Review Programme. [76108]
§ Mr. TimmsThe administration of the Area Benefit Review Programme is the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 March 1999:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the definitions of high and low suspicion of fraud used for categorising cases in the Area Benefit Review Programme.The definitions of high and low suspicion are set out in the Governmental Statistical Service Area Benefit Review Results published in November 1998 and you may wish to refer to this document. The published headline figures of fraud and error exclude high and low suspicion of fraud. We are following up specific cases so that those originally classified as high suspicion of fraud can be subsequently confirmed as fraud, re-classified as correct, or remain as high suspicion.As part of our commitment to improve the administration of the benefit system we have been working to clarify the definitions as published in the above report. The revised definitions are set out below.Low suspicion of fraud means that the reviewing officer suspects that fraud exists, but the evidence is weak, and benefit entitlement does not change. For example, a customer with a long-term claim appears to be living above their means, but there are no solid grounds for suspicion, and no means of establishing the source of the financing.481WHigh suspicion of fraud means that, on the balance of probabilities, a fraudulent situation exists, but there is insufficient information to prove fraud, and benefit entitlement does not change.I hope you find this reply helpful.