| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. There are a considerable number of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill, and I know that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion on at least one very important amendment. The House will have to sit very late if we do not get on with the statement.
Mr. Newton : I welcome, in the spirit in which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered it, his general support for the principle of what the Government are seeking to do and the clear expression that he gave to it. I am sure that others will also welcome his general support. I welcome rather less some of the hon. Gentleman's other comments, not least because they went some way towards misrepresenting our proposals.
It is far-fetched to suggest that the only aim is to save money in circumstances in which the first result of the Government's proposals, including not least the benefit improvements to the in-work benefits, is to increase, not reduce, expenditure. I reject also the suggestion that, where maintenance is paid, there is no gain to those on income support and that the only beneficiary is the taxpayer. Given that the taxpayer has been picking up a bill that was not properly the taxpayer's, simply because maintenance was not being paid, it is far form clear that it is either rational or logical to believe that the taxpayer should continue to pay that bill, even when maintenance is being propertly paid.
Moreover, from the point of view of lone parents, especially those many who wish to work, the fact that maintenance is to be paid to the lone parent will put her in a substantially better position if and when she is able to take work. That is portable income which goes with her ; it is hers by right when she moves off benefit. It provides a better platform for the transition.
As for the £15 disregard, the hon. Gentleman has probably not yet had time to study the examples in the White Paper. However, he will see that that, especially when taken in conjunction with what we have done this very month to improve the housing benefit earnings disregard, significantly improves the return that many lone parents will get from working. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
We estimate that the combination of the proposals that I have included in the White Paper will enable between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents who currently do not feel that they are able to go out to work to do so. That is a gain, from everybody's point of view. One of the hon. Gentleman's last points was his allegation that, somehow, we are compelling lone caring parents to name the father. There is no question of compulsion. It is worth remembering that between 80 and 90 per cent. of never-married mothers readily assist in tracing and collecting maintenance from the father. We shall make the necessary exceptions for circumstances such as rape and incest. Before any action was taken under the proposal that I have announced, there would be a considerable amount of sympathetic investigation by
Column 737
trained officers to establish whether a lone parent had reasonable grounds. Where it was found that those grounds were not reasonable, there would be the usual right of appeal under the social security system. That is not a draconian step but a reasonable one in the circumstances of our policy as a whole.The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had in some way been attracted by one or other of the ingredients of some of the foreign schemes that we have considered. He has misread the position. I was not particularly attracted by the Wisconsin scheme, to which he especially referred. That relates to the absent parent's gross income, which means that the percentage figures that are sometimes quoted represent a much higher figure than those that I have suggested. It makes no allowance for second families, and in many ways it does not seem to be a satisfactory model.
On the point that we are somehow seeking to take half of an absent parent's income, I stress that we are talking about sharing the income that is left after taking the absent parent's net income--his income after tax and national insurance. We are allowing for reasonable housing costs and other obligations and then sharing the rest of the income with the children. The net result, in most cases, is nothing like 50 per cent. but much more like a quarter, and when compared with gross income it is more like 20 per cent. For people on reasonable earnings to be expected to contribute 20 per cent. of their income to the maintenance of their children is in no way unreasonable, and I believe that it will have widespread public support.
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will receive much welcome from my constituents, many of whom are lone mothers with children and who have been unable to get out of the housing and income cycle because of the absence of support from the father of their children? Will he consider the group of young males, many of whom are under the age of 18, who compete to father as many children as they can? Will he consider particularly carefully the incomes that they will provide? Will such payments be made through their parents until, once they are 18, they can pay for themselves?
Mr. Newton : There is no proposal in the White Paper, nor do I have such a proposal, seeking to take money from parents one generation upwards. The formula that we are proposing provides for, and takes account of, the circumstances when young men have acquired the responsibility that inescapably goes with fathering children. I think that my hon. Friend will find that clearly set out in the paper.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : May I give a general welcome to the Secretary of State's statement? Why, as the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family, has it taken so long to bring forward these proposals, when over the past 11 years the idea that parents should support their children has, for a large group of the population, collapsed as a principle affecting their private conduct? Does he accept that many constituents will be pleased that there may be a saving in public expenditure? Some Labour Members do not wish low-wage earners to contribute to the Exchequer when people on higher incomes could but do not make maintenance payments for their children.
Column 738
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that two areas will probably concern many families, particularly women? First, although it is logical to say, "The father should pay maintenance, so why should the mother keep any of it?", public policy does not often work satisfactorily if one allows only for logic. We must work with the grain of human nature, and surely an incentive might make a big difference.Secondly, while a few mothers may decide to be cussed and not name the father of their children, many other women, for good reasons, will not wish to give his name, and many of them will be frightened to do so. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this policy will be conducted sensibly enough to make sure that not only those who can without any worry to themselves disclose the name, do so, but those who would be frightened to do so do not have to pay the penalty of a cut in benefit if they refuse?
Mr. Newton : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has supported the generality of the proposals, just as he has consistently done over a long period. I have already commented on the incentives issue. It is right to focus what we are doing principally on in-work benefits rather than out-of-work benefits, for reasons which are set out in the White Paper and which I explained.
I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which the hon. Gentleman put his last point. I have made it clear that there will be provision for no deductions to be made in circumstances where it is judged reasonable that the caring parent should not wish to assist in pursuing maintenance. That must inescapably be a matter of judgment by trained officers on the basis of skilled interviewing. One of the advantages of setting up a purpose- built agency is that we are much more likely to have that kind of staff than we are under the present arrangements. The hon. Gentleman can have my personal assurance that it is not our intention to "pursue" people in this way--if we want to use that kind of language--where they have a good reasoon for not co-operating.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that these welcome measures should encourage a greater sense of responsibility, so that more parents stand by their children in the first place? On a point of interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), will my right hon. Friend confirm that courts will have the power to use genetic tests in disputed cases?
Mr. Newton : I said in my statement that disputes about paternity will be matters for the courts. It is open to them to use precisely the same techniques and methods as they use now to establish the truth in a disputed paternity case. On my hon. Friend's wider point, I hope that these measures will have that effect, but they will have the advantage of making the situation that follows a breakdown or separation clearer and less of a lottery and hassle than it too often is at present. That will be a clear social gain for all involved.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Does the Secretary of State accept that, from our point of view, it is right and just that a father who can pay but will not should be pursued? We understand that, if this policy
Column 739
is enforced inflexibly, it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Any divorce lawyer will tell the right hon. Gentleman that many divorced women happily forgo their right to alimony and maintenance on condition that the former husband forgoes the right of access to the child? Many estranged husbands deliberately use a weapon of torment against their former wives--access to the children of the marriage. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Child Support Agency will protect women whose husbands say to them, "I am paying for these brats and I will jolly well see them,"--usually at Christmas?Mr. Newton : The two issues are clearly seen in the White Paper, and perhaps even more clearly seen in my mind, as entirely separate. To the extent that one is used as a lever in respect of the other, I am opposed to that. One advantage of our proposal is that it will make it much more difficult for people to use maintenance as a lever separately from access questions, which need to be separately resolved, because it will be much more difficult to avoid maintenance.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Is it not a scandal that only 23 per cent. of single-parent families are supported by the missing father? Is not the most important point that we have heard today the fact that this agency will pursue these fathers to contribute, which will be of value to particular families? Is it not important that these contributions will frequently go far beyond the benefit level that the mothers have been enjoying and, therefore, the narrow view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meecher) is not the key point to the mothers concerned?
Mr. Newton : There will certainly be some cases in which the effective establishment of maintenance will obviate the need for income support but, as I have already said, it is my guess that the greater effect --certainly in terms of numbers--will be to provide a firmer platform on the basis of which lone parents can move into work with confidence should they wish to do so. Whichever is the case, and whatever the precise numbers turn out to be--we are talking about behavioural effects, which are difficult to measure with precision--I am sure that the parents involved will gain.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : May I press the Minister on the question of women and children who are attempting to escape from a physically violent relationship with the man in the family or from mental torture by him? The Secretary of State has not made it clear enough how women and children will be protected from harassment and danger. He ought to acknowledge to the House the fact that it is for the woman and children themselves to judge whether they need to be protected from the man. The new agency will claim the right to intervene in that very private relationship. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that women and children are not left open to more violence and harassment--the exact reasons why they got rid of the man in the first place?
Mr. Newton : Just as with the present system, cases in which violence occurs or is threatened in the way that the hon. Lady suggests will be a matter for agencies other than the Department of Social Security- -most obviously, the police. The officers employed by the Child Support Agency will need to examine carefully all the circumstances, including any record of threats of the kind to which the
Column 740
hon. Lady has referred, in assessing whether or not the attitude of a lone parent is reasonable in a particular case. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, she will realise that there is no other way in which such a system could work.Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : On the continuing problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders, will the new Child Support Agency have the powers and trained staff to chase up delinquent fathers who persistently fail to pay maintenance? Can my right hon. Friend reassure mothers that there will be a higher level of payments than at present?
Mr. Newton : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks, and on every calculation and expectation that we have, the net result of the proposals will be to increase considerably the average maintenance payment and the number of those receiving maintenance.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : The Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that maintenance payments involving children will no longer be the responsibility of the courts, given that the existing arrangements have caused great anxiety to mothers and have created great bitterness between mothers and fathers in relation not only to maintenance but to access.
It is clear that the distinction will be helpful and the Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the courts will no longer be responsible for the setting of maintenance orders in particular. But I am still worried about enforcement and, having had a brief look at the contents of the White Paper, I confess that I do not find the new proposals very imaginative. There is nothing new there. The agency will simply do the kind of work that the courts have unfortunately failed to do in the past. What new enforcement initiatives will there be to ensure more payments by fathers who at present absolve themselves of responsibility?
Mr. Newton : What is new about the proposals is not the detail of the powers but the fact that, for the first time, instead of having a wide variety of agencies--notably the courts and the Department of Social Security--doing different things in different ways, we shall have a single agency dedicated to the purpose and with the staff to do the job.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great strengths of his proposals is that they will allow consistency of treatment as between families? Does he accept that one of the factors that ensures that people obey the law is that they know clearly where they stand, and that he should therefore take every step to publicise the proposals so that people know where they stand in relation to their children?
Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give an example which is to be found in the White Paper or the supporting documents. In two cases that were apparently similar in terms of obligation and income, one father ended up paying £5 a week and another ended up paying £50 a week. That cannot be defended.
Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : The Secretary of State will be aware that Hackney has one of the largest number of single-parent families in the country, more than 17,000. They, in
Column 741
common with millions of other women struggling to bring up children in poverty, will have been dismayed by the facetious way in which some Conservative Members treated this subject this afternoon. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] They would have expected the matter to have been treated more seriously by Conservative Members.Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposal to dock women's benefit by 20 per cent. if they will not name the father will cause great fear to millions of woman? If a women's partner is violent or a drug abuser, she will feel that she must choose between her personal safety and losing a large slice of her tiny income.
Is the Minister aware that many people outside this place believe that, if the Government were seriously interested in helping single parents to struggle out of poverty, they would address training, subsidised child care and above all, a proper level of child benefit?
Mr. Newton : There are three points there. First, I must state that I detected no element of facetiousness in the responses from my hon. Friends or, indeed, in those made by Opposition Members during these exchanges.
Secondly, I have already said a fair amount about the 20 per cent. Millions of women cannot conceivably have anything to fear from the proposal, given that the great majority, as I have said, co-operate in any event with efforts to trace the father and collect maintenance.
Finally, with regard to training, when the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to consider the White Paper, she will see that we want to do what we can to ensure that training services are properly geared to the needs of lone parents, especially those who wish to return to the labour market. However, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is much better that these matters should be taken out of the courts, where there is vast delay and a great deal of trauma involved? Does he also agree that it is highly acceptable that this is, as he said, a platform for working towards independence for women, but most of all it will enable children of the first family to share in the father's prosperity in a way that they cannot at the moment? That is good for them and it is not bad for the father.
Mr. Newton : I hope that it will not be taken as facetious if I thank my hon. Friend and state that I can hardly believe my good fortune in having her praise heaped upon me twice in a week.
Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : May I ask the Secretary of State about a detail on the assessment of incomes? Is it not the case that the whole issue of housing costs is proving to be a quagmire for the Government because the phrase "reasonable housing costs" is used in the White Paper, yet in practice, the housing costs might be much higher? If housing costs constitute 30 per cent. of a low income, if that factor is not got right, the proposals might push families into greater poverty. What does the Minister assume to be "reasonable" housing costs?
Mr. Newton : They will all vary from case to case. The examples in the White Paper, which I hope are helpful in illustrating what is happening in the calculations,
Column 742
necessarily had to choose ballpark figures. The whole point of using terms like "reasonable" in that context is that there will be circumstances, for example mainly in the southern parts of the country, where "reasonable" housing costs are higher than in other parts of the country because of the general cost of housing. We shall try to take account of that. We do not want to have a position in which someone can deliberately house himself extravagantly as a means of avoiding a maintenance bill.Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcements this afternoon are very welcome? However, will he reassure the House that in the new spirit of co-operation within the European Community, there will be an ability to track down European Community fathers resident in this country and also people from this country resident elsewhere in the Community, so that the agency can execute its plans?
Mr. Newton : I certainly hope that, in the area covered by the proposals that I have announced this afternoon--in which I think that we are ahead of most of our Community partners--we shall benefit from the general improvement in European co-operation.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich) : I broadly welcome the proposals. Not only is it absolutely right that absent fathers should make a contribution to their children's welfare ; it is imperative that lone parents should be able to work to achieve their independence. However, I hope that the £15 disregard is only the first step, bearing in mind the current cost of child care.
I should like to press the Secretary of State further on the question of women possibly being intimidated, so that they will not reveal the name of their child's father. Can he tell us what stringent steps may be considered to prevent a father from carrying out such intimidation? It is important both to protect the woman and child, and to ensure that an artificial threat of violence is not used to enable a father to keep quiet and not be brought to the enforcing agency's attention.
Mr. Newton : On the latter question, the hon. Lady has given one good indication of why it would not be sensible for me to make the kind of sweeping statement for which I was asked earlier by certain hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. It could easily provide--quite apart from the mother--the absent father with an opportunity to evade maintenance. The essential answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question--as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has reminded me--is that any threat or actual intimidation is a criminal offence, and a matter for the police.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as a welcome for his approach to the matter, there should be a general welcome in the country for the tone and language that he has used? He is dealing with sensitive matters affecting families under great stress, who are sometimes in great poverty. Will he also pass on to his colleagues who have helped to create this approach, and to staff in the courts and the DSS, the gratitude of 650 Members of Parliament for the work they do every week in coping with the financial needs of people who are often in considerable difficulty?
Mr. Newton : I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a point that perhaps I should have
Column 743
made--that, underlying these substantial proposals has been a huge effort not only by officials in my Department-- although that has certainly been huge--but by officials in a range of Departments across Whitehall. It has been a very effective collaborative effort, the results of which have, I believe, made it worth while.Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks of this being a matter for the police, that some women experience enormous difficulty in obtaining injunctions and having them enforced? At the weekend, I was dealing with a lady in my constituency who has been repeatedly kicked about the head but cannot get her injunction enforced. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, if the majority of women co-operate in seeking maintenance, he insists on compulsion for the minority who may have good reason to resist?
Mr. Newton : I would almost turn round the hon. Lady's last point. The more that the great majority think it reasonable to co-operate--and, indeed, do co-operate--the less proper it is simply to allow others not to co-operate, without good reason. As for her earlier point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the problems of dealing with domestic violence are not exactly new, and certainly have not been precipitated by the White Paper. The Home Office issued a circular early in the year encouraging the police to take much more interest in such matters, because this is a long-running problem that needs firmer action.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the millions of caring parents who do take responsibility for their children, and who recognise that the hallmark of a responsible society is individual's taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Will my right hon. Friend consider a further suggestion, perhaps with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science--the introduction of nursery vouchers for lone parents, who at present find that they are at a great disadvantage? They are having problems in getting their children educated before the age of five, and are thus handicapped in trying to find work.
Mr. Newton : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note my hon. Friend's proposal. For my part, I believe that the right course is the one on which we have embarked- -with better earnings disregards this month--which will be extended through the introduction of the maintenance disregard. That will improve the position of lone parents generally, and help them to meet work expenses-- whether in the form of child-care costs or, for instance, travel costs.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Does the Secretary of State accept that, as his proposals are contained in a booklet called "Children Come First", the reservations that have been drawn to his attention, by hon. Ladies in particular, are because of our concern about children and the caring parent, who invariably is the mother? Therefore, will he explain why he regards it as a clear obligation on caring parents who are in receipt of family credit or income support to have to use the services of the proposed agency, as they are invariably the most vulnerable sections within our society? What steps will be taken to observe the total confidentiality of all such parents who are obliged to use the agency service? They are women who are subjected to
Column 744
domestic violence and to other threats. The confidentiality aspect must be dealt with in any legislation that is brought forward.Mr. Newton : I do not think that I can add to what I said about the reason for thinking it right that those in receipt of
benefits--whereas I said that the public can be seen to have an interest-- should have to use the services of the agency. The hon. Lady may be labouring under a slight misapprehension in some respects. Many lone parents within the existing system much prefer the DSS to take over their maintenance orders, to do the work, and to go through the hassle of collecting maintenance than have to do it themselves. I see no reason why that role should not be enhanced rather than diminished under my proposals.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Making irresponsible fathers act responsibly towards the families whom they have created is entirely to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the House of the time scale within which the reforms will be implemented? Bearing in mind that the need to know the name of the father is an important point in the success of the reforms, will my right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of names that are obtained now easily, correctly and satisfactorily?
Mr. Newton : Of course, it is not always possible to get a name, but often indications can be given that will help a well-organised agency to trace the person in question. We hope that the formula will start to apply within the existing system--the courts and the DSS--some time in the early part of 1992 and that the agency will be up and running in the course of 1993. As I said, it will be some time--perhaps two to three years--before it will be able to take on all existing cases.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : I welcome this statement as underlining what should be axiomatic from the concept of fatherhood being for life--that the state, often unwittingly and with the best motives, has undermined traditional notions of parental responsibility in terms of access and support. Will my right hon. Friend go right to the heart of the matter and to what should be our primary concern, and explain how the statement benefits children?
Mr. Newton : It will benefit children, first, by ensuring that maintenance is paid when it is currently not being paid or that more adequate maintenance is paid. Secondly, it will remove a great deal--I have used the word "hassle" several times, and I shall use it again--of the hassle of confrontation between separating parents, to which the present system can give rise. Thirdly, and perhaps as important as anything else, the statement will help by providing the caring parent with a better basis on which to build her own independence and, therefore, that of the child.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : That is the third time from that side.
Mr. Speaker : I have called Mr. Viggers, but I must balance it up.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : May I also welcome these thoughtful and sensitive proposals? All hon. Members know how often the sadness of separation is followed by the humiliation of the woman having to pursue the father
Column 745
for money for herself and for the children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has done today is important? He has turned back an erosion of principles that has pervaded the past few decades during which there has been a growing feeling that the state is responsible for individuals. In fact, parents are responsible for their children, and they cannot walk away from their responsibility.Mr. Newton : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that we have gone some way towards re-establishing a principle that is accepted by everyone, which is that parents have a responsibility which cannot simply be cast aside.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : What savings is the Secretary of State hoping to make in the third, fourth and fifth years? Why could not those savings be used to help the single-parent families who are living in considerable poverty in this country and some second families who are in acute hardship because of maintenance payments?
Mr. Newton : Very roughly, we think that, in the first couple of years, there will probably be additional expenditure of between £100 million and £150 million on setting up the agency and making the benefit improvements to which I have referred. Even allowing for that, there will then be a net benefits saving of more than £50 million in the third year, which will build up over a long period to a sum significantly greater than that.
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : When it is devised, will the formula be sufficiently flexible to take into account, for example, a person being responsible for another person's poll tax ; a person being responsible, in some cases, for school fees which are voluntary ; and the fact that, if someone is living in a large house before the problems occur, a huge lump sum has been paid to the carer on separation? Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that, because of a second relationship, the carer may sometimes be well off when the father of the children is not?
Mr. Newton : I said earlier that some of these matters--including, for example, property settlements--will necessarily remain a matter for the courts. However, as far as possible, we shall seek to ensure that, where any modification of the maintenance arrangements flows from that, it is carried out according to clear and certain rules.
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : The Secretary of State will realise that he has had two or perhaps two and a half cheers from Opposition Members about his statement. On at least three or four occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the agency will have enough staff to do the job, but he must be aware of the damning report which was published earlier this year by the National Audit Office, dealing with support for lone parents, which disclosed that the "liable relative" section staff of his Department have been cut by one third in the past eight years and that those are the very civil servants with the job of chasing up fathers to ensure that maintenance is paid. Where is the guarantee that the
Column 746
agency will have sufficient staff to do the job and that there will not be any further cuts that will place a burden on lone parents? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about lone parents' ability to work? I forewarned him of this at business questions last Thursday. Although the report has not yet been published, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, earlier this year, in the Public Accounts Committee his own chief civil servant said on no fewer than six occasions that the responsibility for the changes of policy which had, in effect, made it more difficult for lone parents to go out to work were all ministerial changes. They were not changes made by the Department ; they were policy decisions. Where is the evidence in today's statement that the Government have learnt the lessons of the changes that they made when they removed child-care costs from income support--although they had been included in supplementary benefit--which would genuinely enable lone parents to get out into the labour market again?Mr. Newton : Since there is no very good evidence that the supplementary benefit arrangements were widely understood or widely used, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Obviously, the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been reported to me and, equally obviously, I readily accept that changes in policy are matters for Ministers, not civil servants.
On staffing, I repeat the point that I have made once or twice already. Not the least gain from all this is that the staff involved in this area--the same is true of the staff who are involved with national insurance contributions and compliance in our offices--will now be part of a separate distinct agency, purpose-built for the one task. That will make it much less likely that, unlike in the past, insufficient priority will be given to that work in the future.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on responding to the wishes of the many single parents who wish to resume some form of work, and on the changes that he has made to the family credit arrangements? How many people will the changes benefit in terms of enabling them to come off income support? Finally, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that there is widespread uptake of the enhanced family credit arrangements?
Mr. Newton : As with family credit, under the present arrangements we shall try to bring the provisions to people's attention in every possible way. We have had a good deal of success. Give or take the uncertainties of behavourial effects, we estimate that between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents will find it possible to move into work as a result of these proposals.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are interested in primarily two issues relating to this matter, one of which is that absentee fathers should face their responsibility--there is no difference between us on that? The second concern--I put this matter to the Prime Minister in a question last Session --is : who will benefit--the Chancellor or the child? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Prime Minister that, she said that the benefit would go to the child and the mother? In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Treasury will gain from
Column 747
this move from the third year onwards? Will he also confirm that single mothers who stay at home will not gain at all from these measures?Mr. Newton : I am becoming increasingly resistant to the way in which Opposition Members talk about "the Treasury" as if it were somehow disembodied from all the people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about "the Treasury", he means the taxpayer.
Mr. Newton : "The taxpayer" includes many families in which the parents are working to bring up their children, often on modest incomes. I see no reason why we should ignore their interests in all this.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents will welcome the fact that financial responsibility is being returned firmly to the childrens' parents? May I suggest that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues might consider broadening the use of the Child Support Agency in the long run into a number of other areas, such as housing? I have a number of violent husbands -- [Laughter.] --who continue to occupy council houses, whose wives are either unable or unwilling--understandably--to pursue them through the courts. Many of those women and their children would benefit greatly if this arrangement were extended to housing.
Mr. Newton : In so far as financial payments for whatever purposes are concerned, it is clear that everything that I have announced today will contribute to easing the problems that concern my hon. Friend.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Will the Secretary of State accept that it is the daily reality of the Scottish courts that the issue of access is normally linked to aliment, and will he take account of that? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of the people who go to these lengths to avoid payment feel the greatest bitterness, and will he therefore accept the pleas made by hon. Members of all parties not to pressurise women into pursuing these people on pain of penalty? Finally, will the collection agency collect on behalf of women who are in work, as well as women who are on benefit, and if not, is not that a disincentive to going out to work?
Mr. Newton : The agency will be ready to collect on behalf of anybody who wishes to use it. When I said that using the agency would be a requirement for those on certain benefits, I also made it clear that parents in other cases who wished to use the agency would be free to do so. I do not accept the terminology used by the hon. Gentleman or words such as "pressurise". On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Tony Banks : Is the Secretary of State aware that, unless he is a little more forthcoming about what constitute "reasonable grounds", it will appear to Opposition Members that the agency's role will be more to save money than to give first consideration to the welfare of the child? Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed by the arguments made by hon. Members of all parties and by the fact that there is genuine concern that mothers who have separated from violent partners are the very people about whom we should be most concerned,
Column 748
because they will be the most reluctant to give the name of their partner? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point very much in mind?Finally, what arrangements are being made to achieve reciprocal arrangements with other Governments? Many partners leave this country and go to other parts of the world, but, as far as I can tell, under these provisions it will be difficult for the agency to make a claim. What steps are the Government taking to make some reciprocal arrangements?
Mr. Newton : Obviously, I shall explore the possibilities on the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised. On his earlier point, I hope that it will be of some encouragement to him that the estimates that I have given include no estimated saving from the proposal for a possible 20 per cent. deduction. We do not expect it to have a massive saving effect. It is simply an appropriate provision to avoid unreasonable non-co-operation. I am reluctant to be drawn in the direction that the hon. Gentleman asks because it would all too easily provide any husband with an easy let-out. He would simply have to make a particular threat.
Mr. Speaker : I have now had an opportunity to send for the extract from Hansard . I find that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said :
"Some of the children are yours."
That appears to be a reflection on me-- [Laughter. ]--but I take it to be a reflection on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). He subsequently said :
"A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)--all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me--that I have sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not."
Ms. Short : To the best of his knowledge. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker : I now say to the hon. Lady that that was undoubtedly an unparliamentary allegation. I ask her to withdraw it so that we may get on.
| Next Section
| Home Page |