Benefit Fraud

Mr. Webb

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the savings his Department has made from the investigation of fraud in each of the last six years; [124499](2) if he will estimate the savings arising from the

(a) National Benefit Fraud Hotline and (b) report-acheat-online claim forms in each of the last six years. [124502]

The investigation of fraud leads to savings in two ways. The detection of fraud already in the system prevents further losses in those cases and secondly our work to tackle fraud acts as a deterrent to prevent potential fraud happening in the first place. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the total savings resulting from our anti-fraud work.However, we know from our continuous measurement of the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance that between 1997–98 and 2001–02 we had achieved a reduction of 24 per cent. We are committed to achieving our target of a 33 per cent. reduction for working age customers by 2004, and a 50 per cent. reduction by 2006.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been made to the national benefit fraud hotline in each of the last six years; and how many have resulted in successful prosecutions. [124500]

The available information is in the table.

National benefit fraud hotline
April-March	Number of calls received	Successful Prosecutions
1997–98	188,038	n/a¹
1998–99	170,032	n/a¹
1999–2000	162,067	335
2000–01	²208,201	492
2001–02	²205,999	703
2002–03	²159,290	706
¹ Full information on the number of successful prosecutions resulting from calls to the national benefit fraud hotline is available only from April 1999.
² Figures include calls received by the Call Centre Bureau, which since May 2000 has been contracted to answer calls outside normal working hours when the main hotline is closed.

Source:

National benefit fraud hotline and fraud information by sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of administering the (a) national benefit fraud hotline and (b) report-acheat-online claim form in each of the last six years. [124503]

The available information is in the table.

Cost of administering the national benefit fraud hotline and the 'report-a-cheat-online'claim form¹
£
Year²	Staffing³	Goods and services	Total
2000–01	494,457	133,347	627,804
2001–02	529,026	556,974	1,086,000
2002–03	597,807	361,470	959,277
¹ The cost of administering the NBFH and report-a-cheat-online cannot be separated.
²Cost figures are not available prior to 2000–01.
³Staffing costs are based on the employment of telephone operators and the admin support needed to assist the operation.

Source:

National benefit fraud hotline (NBFH)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of benefit fraud have been detected in each of the last six years; and how many resulted in successful prosecution. [124505]

Fraud investigations
	Successful prosecutions		Cautions and administrative penalties as an alternative to prosecution
	DWP	Local authorities	DWP	Local authorities	Total
1997–98	11,380	700	—	—	12,080
1998–99	9,970	800	—	—	10,770
1999–2000	9,130	860	11,030	390	21,410
2000–01	11,400	1,100	15,560	550	28,610
2001–02	11,180	1,700	13,550	2,600	29,030
2002–03	9,270	2,500	14,270	6,000	32,040

Notes:

1. Administrative penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998. Cautions were made available to local authorities as a sanction from the start of 2001–02.

2. Figures for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with DWP data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

3. Management information data for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is not available for all local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 have been rounded to two significant figures.

4. Information for 2001–02 is from a count of prosecutions and sanctions completed by all local authorities; this data is collected from local authority subsidy returns. Subsidy data may differ from management information data (shown for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01) at local authority level; however, analysis shows a high level of consistency between the two data sources at national level.

5. The DWP figures are from the Fraud Information By Sector database, which shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All DWP totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

6. In accordance with National Statistics Guidelines all DWP figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Due to rounding process totals may not agree.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2003, Official Report, columns 522–23W. on fraud (Scotland), by what means his Department tracks trends in council tax benefit fraud (a) at national and (b) local authority level. [124858]

The measurement of fraud and error is complex and expensive and as such it is concentrated on benefits with the highest expenditure and risk of loss, such as housing benefit. Information on the cost of fraud and error is not available for council tax benefit. However, the measures that we are taking to fight fraud and error in housing benefit will also serve to improve the accuracy of council tax benefit.

Volume 409: debated on Wednesday 16 July 2003