I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 17, line 35, leave out from `where' to end of line 36 and insert

`the Secretary of State or an authority that administers housing benefit or council tax benefit is satisfied'.

The amendment should not detain us long. We tabled it not because we wish to raise yet again the definition of ``appears'' but to try to tease out from the Government the process that they envisage for dealing with colluding employers. Do they envisage an either/or situation of prosecution and penalties simultaneously, or prosecutions or penalties first? We thing that the best way to encourage employers not to collude is not necessarily to prosecute them, but I should be grateful if the Minister enlightened us about the general philosophy behind the Government's approach.

I shall deal with this matter briefly. In a nutshell, the sanction is an alternative to prosecution. In other words, a sanction will be offered—someone of much greater authority than a fraud investigator would decide—where there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. The hon. Lady asked whether there will be a prosecution and a sanction. No, there will not be both. The sanction is an alternative to prosecution for the collusive employer. The decision whether to offer a sanction will depend on the scale of the alleged offence and the amount of money involved, which must be factors. I assume that that is so even now, because we can offer sanctions to people under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which was enacted by the Conservative Government.

We offer sanctions to around 10,000 people a year and we prosecute 10,000 people a year. The ability to offer sanctions is a useful additional tool in the armoury to enable us to deal with fraud in the system. We want to be able to offer sanctions to an employer just as we would to an individual citizen. We want consistency in the process. The amendment would introduce a degree of inconsistency.

Taking a case to the point where a sanction can be offered means undergoing the process of facilitating a prosecution, therefore following all the procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The sanction is not offered on a whim. It is not an alternative to doing the work necessary to bring the case to the point of prosecution. The basic homework must still be done. It is true that it saves the time and effort of going to court, and it also spares the individual a conviction, but the sanction is not light. The money that has been stolen must be paid back plus 30 per cent. on top. That is the ballpark figure.

In summary, we want consistency. We want to be able deal with colluding employers as we have been able to deal with individual benefit claimants following the 1997 legislation, which made sanctions available to the Department the first time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he has made the position clear; doubtless when we read the record, we will see that it is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill..