Local authority powers to prosecute benefit fraud

I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in Clause 46, page 38, line 2, at end insert ‘unless—

(a) the proceedings relate to any benefit or circumstances or any description of benefit or circumstances which the Secretary of State prescribes for the purposes of this paragraph, or

(b) the Secretary of State has directed that the authority must not bring the proceedings, and a direction under paragraph (b) may relate to a particular authority or description of authority or to particular proceedings or any description of proceedings.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71.

We are tumbling quickly to a conclusion this afternoon, Mr. Hood, and I thank you for that. During the debate on Amendment No. 68, I spoke about the need for safeguards to prevent the misuse of local authorities’ new investigation powers by local fraud investigators. These amendments ensure that we have corresponding safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the new prosecution powers introduced in Clause 46.

The clause will allow local authorities in England and Wales the power to prosecute fraud against DWP-administered benefits, which I have already mentioned. In Scotland, the procurator fiscal will be responsible for the prosecution of all criminal activity. The safeguards will include limiting the type of benefit that a local authority may prosecute and directing that authorities may not bring proceedings in certain cases. We require that local authorities have regard to the code for crime prosecutors when prosecuting in cases of national benefit fraud. We would also, as I indicated earlier, withdraw the powers in case of misuse. If the Secretary of State withdraws the powers, he or she may continue with any proceedings that have already been started or he or she may discontinue them. I am pleased to move the amendments.

Briefly, I do not think that there is anything objectionable in principle here. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could share with the Committee any information that she has about anybody else who is empowered to carry out prosecutions in relation to benefit fraud on behalf of the DWP. Are there any such persons? Perhaps not. To extend the thought for a moment, in relation to those who provide support under pathways to work, will she assure the Committee that it is the Government’s  intention, at least at this stage, not to award any prosecution powers to private sector providers and that the powers will be kept in-house in the Department, just like the decision-making process?

I am happy to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point. It might be helpful in case of misinterpretation of the new burdens to say that the Government do not anticipate that the clauses and Government amendments will impose any new burdens on local authorities. They are there for the sake of clarity, so that when central Government impose new burdens on local authorities, there will be a principle to deal with it.

Perhaps it might be helpful for the Committee to understand that we anticipate that the powers will create efficiency savings. They should result in an efficiency savings of between £450,000 and £600,000 each year for DWP and local authorities because of the reduced need to conduct joint investigations to comply with current legislation. As I said when I opened this debate, about half of housing benefit frauds are linked to other benefit frauds. It seems appropriate to link the two, albeit with safeguards in place.

The hon. Member for Daventry asked for a specific statement about whether other agencies will be able to prosecute. There will be no agencies other than local authorities and, as the Government said earlier in the Bill’s progress, it is certainly not our intention to award such powers to any private sector organisation. With that, I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 70, in clause 46, page 38, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State may continue proceedings which have been brought by an authority under this section as if the proceedings had been brought in his name or he may discontinue the proceedings if—

(a) he makes provision under subsection (2)(a), such that the authority would no longer be entitled to bring the proceedings under this section,

(b) he gives a direction under subsection (2)(b) in relation to the proceedings, or

(c) a condition prescribed under subsection (3) ceases to be satisfied in relation to the proceedings.’.

No. 71, in clause 46, page 38, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) In the exercise of its power under subsection (2), a local authority must have regard to the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985—

(a) in determining whether the proceedings should be instituted;

(b) in determining what charges should be preferred;

(c) in considering what representations to make to a magistrates’ court about mode of trial;

(d) in determining whether to discontinue proceedings.’.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.