Q. Who will take the decision as to whether to prosecute in a fraud case or whether an administrative penalty is appropriate and on what grounds? Is the Department already using these powers and under what authority?

A. A senior officer refers to policy guidance and specific criteria in making these decisions. They take into account factors such as the amount of benefit fraudulently obtained and over what period. The Department has powers in this regard at present in relation to individual claimants only - not employers.

Q. Do difficulties not occur when the system is so ad hoc? Is it not the case that discretion can be used in different ways?

A. All cases where the benefit fraudulently obtained exceeds £1500 are prosecuted. In other cases the decision on whether or not to offer an administrative penalty is taken by a relatively small number of people using the same guidelines which should ensure consistency.

Q. Are these decisions taken locally or Centrally?

A. Centrally.

Q. Is this by Fraud Section?

A. Yes. The section is known as the Benefit Investigation Service.

Q. If the partner of a claimant is aware that the claim was fraudulent can they also be prosecuted?

A. If a husband, for example, was not claiming benefit for his wife then there would be no repercussions for the wife.

Q. In relation to accessing the bank account details of claimants have you the power to do so on anonymous tip off for example?

A. Yes. We have that power but we consider other factors before deciding to investigate fully on the basis of tip offs. In addition safeguards are in place in relation to data protection law for example.

Q. Why do you propose to access bank accounts? Why, as is now the case, do you not ask claimants to produce bank details?

A. This refers to income related benefits with capital limits. Numerous benefits do not have capital limits.

NB. The point was made at this stage that the Committee felt that an inter-agency approach would be of value in fraud detection and eradication.

Q. Will there be a Code of Practice in relation to this Bill? Can you confirm that none of the powers proposed will be used until the Assembly has had a chance to consider the Code of Practice?

A. Yes. The assembly will be able to consider the Code of Practice which is likely to be produced in the autumn.

Q. Will the contents of the Bill meet the standards of the Human Rights Commission?

A. The Minister, in due course, will make a statement to the Assembly in relation to Human Rights based on legal advice. This will of course be open to challenge.

Q. Is it true that an Housing Executive official, for example, could access any bank account at the touch of a button?

A. Bulk matching only looks for general irregularities at the initial stage. Personal details are not available at this stage.

Q. Once you have accessed an individual bank account on a tip off, for example, and find that this individual is completely innocent do you advise them that you accessed their bank details?

A. No. the details will just be destroyed.

Q. This seems unfair. Would you not consider this issue again before issuing the Code of Practice? You should also consider publishing figures of, for example, how many accounts have been accessed and in how many there was no case to answer.

A. Yes. We will consider this again.

Q. In this regard how will complaints be handled?

A. Complaints will initially be referred to a Grade 7 manager but may also be referred if necessary to the senior officer with overall responsibility for these matters or to the Chief Executive.

Q. Could you provide some further clarification on the discretion to prosecute or the offer of an administrative penalty? Do the same rules apply to employers as claimants?

A. Discretion is not a licence to be inconsistent. The same criteria should be applied equally in all cases. All employers are prosecuted - the £1500 limit does not apply in their case.

Q. Can you provide figures in relation to the number of investigations and prosecutions etc?

A. Approximately there were 21000 referrals last year of which 13000 were investigated. There were 6000 successful interviews leading to changes in circumstances, 600 prosecutions and 49 offers of administrative penalty.

Q. Do you have the power to access secondary bank accounts?

A. Yes, if it is relevant to the investigation.

Q. In relation to the proposed cut in benefit to a claimant who has committed benefit fraud twice in a 3 year period - does this not effect innocent dependents?

A. In the case of a family only the portion of benefit payable to the offender is cut.

Q. In reality will dependents not suffer hardship?

A. It is for the family to decide how to use the benefit they receive.

Social Development Minutes 17 May 2001