House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Nov 1991

Column 415

The police in Bolton would like the research study also to look into the issue of juveniles having the right to silence. The subject of unruly youngsters needs to be considered. Mr. John Watson, who has responsibility at the town hall for crime prevention, does not think that offenders should be released until they have shown proper remorse. That would certainly be a new line on youth custody. Many offenders who come out of youth custody centres go back in--I believe that recidivism is 80 per cent. If we did not let people out until they showed proper remorse, perhaps the rate would not be as high. The courts, not social services, should decide what is to be done with unruly youngsters. At the moment, social services say that they can take care of those youngsters, but those people merely commit more crimes. The absconding level is far too high. A police survey in the neighbouring county of Lancashire showed that last year 950 people absconded from care. I do not know the figures for Greater Manchester or Bolton, but I am sure that they would be even higher. That matter was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in an Adjournment debate on 16 October.

I am in favour of stiffer sentences and unlimited fines being imposed on those who repeatedly commit car offences. With corrective courses, people would be encouraged to do something positive with their time instead of committing more offences. Recently, someone set light to five vehicles in one night--I do not know whether it was our friend Houdini, released from social services. That 14-year-old has already fathered one child, perhaps more.

Conscious of the time, I should like to wind up. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the idea of having a branch of the Home Office in Bolton. I do not have time to speak about other possibilities for that branch, such as involvement in immigration control and in issuing the new driving licences, with photographs attached. I am sure that there would be plenty of work to keep it extremely busy.

9.13 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I, too, wish to compliment my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the measures which were announced in the Gracious Speech to improve the prospects for law and order. We know that we will never get far into a debate on those terrible twins, law and order--"Laura and Nora"--before we hear of the single parent, the mother on her own who, according to the mythology, is responsible for many of the problems in our society--not least all the unruly children who are constantly blamed for many of the problems.

I do not believe that there are many men in this place who believe in anything other than immaculate conception. We never hear about the fathers of these children. We never hear talk of ways to control the promiscuity of males in this place or outside it. All we hear about is irresponsible young women who produce children who then run around the streets stealing from cars and stealing from shops. We are given to understand that it is that small group of women who cause all the problems.

It is salutary to remind ourselves that there are more than 10--I think that it is more like 100--males in our prisons for every woman. There are well under 1,000 women in prison, and the number of those who have committed serious crimes can be counted almost on the

Column 416

fingers of one hand. I wish that we could say that for the male population. To suggest that, with the male population largely controlling our society, women are somehow responsible for all the law and order problems is not only insulting, but ridiculous. On behalf of Sharon and Tracey in Essex, and on behalf of all the other women who are frequently insulted and who are held up as loose-living women, I say that the law and order problem is a problem of males. While talking about that subject and while talking about young women, who often bring up children on their own, we should not accept the criticism that we always get from the Opposition--that all the problems are somehow down to capitalism, the profit motive and market forces. Quite the contrary : it is the welfare state, introduced with the best of motives, which is largely responsible for taking away from individuals their responsibility for their actions and for bringing up their children.

The welfare system rewards unsocial behaviour, if that is what one says about women who bring up children on their own, because it gives them benefits that trap them in that position. In many ways the system does not allow them to get out of that situation because, if they want to work and help themselves, they are penalised for doing so. That is the first aspect of the welfare state that contributes to the problems of women raising children on their own.

We then have the system of destroying the private landlord in our society, which has led to the establishment of low-income estates where people of comparable incomes are herded together. The children in those conditions, often because their mothers--and sometimes fathers--are not very well off, are often left in groups on their own for long periods. That does not happen because the parents want it, because they often have to go out to work to help support the children. What such families need is a helping hand with places for those children to go and things for them to do. My solution would be to enable such people to pay for more help and child care, either before the children go to school or when they come out of school and need more supervision. It is possible for us to construct policies that will enable individual parents to obtain such child care and to pay for it themselves.

We then have the problems of our state education system. Many of our schools are no-hope institutions in which children feed on each other, learning bad behaviour and feeling that while they are in the school, there is not much point in trying to behave and to learn because the curriculum does not cater for their lifestyle or their needs.

The attitude towards women and responsibility needs to be looked at carefully. Most women would like the freedom to be able to take more responsibility on their own shoulders. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, shares my concern that we should do more to assist women who want to go to work, not to pay for tights or lipstick, but to help to contribute to the family income and to be independent. I hope that my party will introduce policies that will enable more women to do that. They could contribute through their own earnings to nurseries or creches, or for child minders before school, after school, or in the school holidays. All those are intimate problems for women in our society which is often not appreciated in the House.

I would like us to have policies that give women the freedom to shop when they need to. The Opposition are very backward-looking on the issue. They do not want shops to open in the evenings and at weekends when

Column 417

women can go shopping. We need such freedom for women. We need support for the opening of shops at times other than between 9 am and 5 pm, when many women are at work and cannot use them.

Women would also like the freedom to go to the doctor's in the evening and to do all sorts of other things such as taking the kids to the dentist. Such activities require a much more flexible society so that women have more freedom to avail themselves of such services. That would make life easier for women. It would not make them more irresponsible, but would enable them to take on more of the responsibility for raising their children. Child rearing is part of women's nature and they do not need any lectures about it from this place.

This debate is about rights, freedom and law and order. As a woman, I get sick and tired of the idea of men handing down rights to women. It is a matter of giving us this and that to keep us quiet. Women represent half of our community and they contribute a good 75 per cent. to the running of our society. They raise the children and they see that all you chaps get your shirts washed and ironed and that there is dinner in the oven. By and large most children in our country are brought up decently and nicely. We should remember that when we go on about the problems of children in the streets. I want policies--I am sure that my party will introduce them--that increasingly reflect the needs of women so that they have the ability to make choices for themselves. The rights of women should not be handed down to them : they should be an integral part of our society. When women can take on more responsibilities--because we have made that possible--we will hear less of the type of condemnation, which always features in such debates, of women, particularly single ones, who are held responsible for so many of the problems in society. Let us always remember that, for every child who is brought up by a single woman, there is a man out there who has shuffled off his responsibilities. It is to the great credit of the Conservative party that it has been the first to introduce a Bill to pin such fellows down and make them contribute, as they rightly should. I look forward to the day when we have genetic fingerprinting so there will not be any argument from men as to who is responsible for raising the child.

9.21 pm

Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking) : Today, a number of my hon. Friends have expressed their regret at some of the omissions from the Queen's Speech. However, I was riveted by the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who welcomed a measure that he thought was in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that it will highlight his constituents' day when they read the record of the debate and learn that their representative cannot read. I hope that he will study the Queen's Speech.

I remind the House that we have had a debate on rights, freedoms and responsibilities for many years. In many respects, we all regret that, because we had all hoped that, one day, the Government would see the light and get the balance right when distributing rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Sadly, we still have to keep on reminding them.

Column 418

It is about time that the Government accepted their responsibility for all sorts of things--for example, the rising unemployment levels, the rundown of the health service, the lack of measures to reduce homelessness and the failure of their economic policy to generate growth and investment to end the recession so that we can build a better Britain.

The fundamental difference between Conservative policy and philosophy and our own is at its sharpest when we talk about freedoms. The Government have eroded our freedoms dramatically. Power has been concentrated in the Cabinet and in the hands of the Prime Minister, with very few checks and balances.

Public confidence in the judiciary is at an all-time low--hardly surprising, considering recent miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cases. Now doubts have been cast on the justice meted out to the Tottenham Three, and who knows what other cases will come to light? I have an interest in the case of Sara Thornton, and I hope that at some stage the Home Office will relent and review that case. It is grossly unfair that she should have been sentenced to life having been provoked by her partner over a period into killing him.

The Government have been responsible for much of the secrecy surrounding many of their policies. They attempted, for instance, to suppress the publication and reporting of "Spycatcher". This Government instigated the raid on the BBC to confiscate the Zircon tapes. They badgered and bullied the broadcasting service to stop the showing of "Real Lives" and "Death on the Rock". This Government removed the right to belong to a trade union from the workers at GCHQ, and they abolished the democratically elected Greater London council. That is a sorry record of the erosion of civil liberties and the curtailment of freedoms.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary emphasised, a Freedom of Information Act which we would introduce would go a long way to improving all our freedoms. We should have, and we will have, a right to know. Devolved government in the form of Scottish and Welsh assemblies and regional government will make for much more open government than we have had in the past 12 years.

The only freedom that the Government appear to understand is the freedom of the market even though it has so patently failed to deliver enough housing, child care or training. The Opposition understand--Conservative Members appear not to--that there can be no freedom without equality, and equality is underpinned by rights. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to more genuine equality for women. I hope that the Government will listen to some of what she had to say and enshrine it in law.

Most women are not convinced by the Prime Minister's new role as the champion of women's rights, not least because he was the first Prime Minister in 25 years to fail to appoint a woman to his Cabinet. He claims that there are women "poised in the wings". If so, why not invite them in? Why wait until after a general election? There are women Tory Members on the Back Benches now, so why not appoint them? That would be a good move-- but far be it for me to advise the Prime Minister on that point.

The Prime Minister also says that it is a disgrace that there are not more women on public boards. Since he became Prime Minister he has had a chance- -his predecessor had a chance, too--to increase women's

Column 419

representation on such boards, but between 1985 and 1990 we know that their representation rose by a dismal 0.3 per cent. What a record! The Prime Minister has suddenly discovered this problem and intends to put it right--

Mr. Maclennan : Would the hon. Lady have supported the resignation of the Home Secretary over the escapes from Brixton? That would have enabled space to be cleared.

Ms. Richardson : No, I would not.

Women are not convinced by the Prime Minister's conversion. It is all very well to discuss with industry the promotion of women to board rooms and senior managerial positions, but in general women see that, if the Government do not tackle low pay and unequal pay and provide some help with child care, women will not in any sense be equal or have any kind of equal rights. There is no point in merely asking industry to promote equal opportunities policies. Many such policies have to be enshrined in a legal framework to ensure that employers implement them.

As the hon. Member for Billericay said, the lack of child care is an enormous obstacle to women's participation in the work force. The Prime Minister believes that employers should provide it or that women should be able to afford it. That leaves out of account many millions of women in low -paid and under-valued jobs. Any notion of the Government playing a role in increasing the provision of child care seems to escape the Prime Minister.

I was at the recent launch of Opportunity 2000, an excellent initiative by Business in the Community. The Prime Minister was quick to claim the credit for abolishing the tax on workplace nurseries. He failed to shoulder the responsibility, which Government should shoulder, for imposing the tax in the first place. He also failed to acknowledge that there are other forms of child care which should form a list of options available to women to enable them to combine their home and work responsibilities.

The Prime Minister said that over half the population

"go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase." He again failed to acknowledge the part that he could play in reducing the odds which are stacked against women and shackle them in the way that he described. The Government have pursued policies which have added to and certainly not loosened women's shackles. Instead of providing a legal framework, the Government have blocked the legislation that is on offer to them. For example, they have argued against almost every EC directive which would have improved women's poor position in the work force, increased their opportunities and given them increased freedom to work. They have blocked directives on parental leave, on part-time workers and on maternity rights. They have removed the right of women who work in small firms to return to work after childbirth and, by changing the law, they have blocked the right of married women on employment training to claim child-care. They have removed the right of women to have child-care costs taken into account when claiming income support, and they have prevented those women from having the freedom to take up part-time work to improve their incomes.

The Queen's Speech mentions the Government's intention to enhance competitive tendering for local authority services. If the Government are serious about promoting equal opportunities, I challenge them to

Column 420

reintroduce contract compliance, which they outlawed and which provides genuine incentives and practical advice to firms that wish to follow equal opportunities policies.

Many hon. Members spoke about crime. I place firmly in the Government's lap the responsibility for failing to tackle crime. The fear and the reality of crime constrict many people's lives. The British crime survey shows that many women are afraid to go out alone at night. A disturbingly high number, particularly of elderly women and women from ethnic minorities, are scared to go out during the day as well. Effectively, that means that women of all classes, sizes, shapes and backgrounds are prisoners in their own homes.

I am sure that hon. Members have talked to constituents, many of them young women with children, who say bitterly that they feel trapped in their environment and dare not go out at night, even to have a cup of tea with a friend. That is a serious situation, for which the Government must take some responsibility, because they have not introduced policies to correct it. They promised a crackdown on crime, but crime has doubled. With the crumbling of housing estates, ill-lit and hostile city centres and a dirty, rundown transport system that has reduced the numbers of guards, conductors and station staff, the growth of crime has been fostered. We must not lose sight of the fact that such decay contributes to crime, and that is something that the Government acknowledge.

The Government have failed to provide us with a comprehensive crime prevention strategy that includes tackling the causes of crime. When we come to power next year, the Labour party will start to reduce poverty and deprivation and begin the regeneration of our cities. We shall encourage local authorities to introduce safe lighting, improve public transport and promote effective partnerships between the community and the police. That will be a real start on reducing the level of crime.

I could talk about many more rights, but the last one that I shall mention is the right to a decent home. I am surprised that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about increasing house building or about plans to get the homeless into a home of their own, thereby giving them a right that they do not now enjoy. I believe, as I am sure that other hon. Members do, that one of the basic rights of every individual is that to a place to live. While we live in a society in which many millions of people, for all sorts of reasons but mostly because of the lack of decent housing on offer, are homeless, we are denying them the basic right to live decently and properly.

The Government have been talking about taking measures against squatting. Nobody approves of squatting, whether it is in privately or publicly owned property, but the fact is that the majority of people who squat do so because they have nowhere to live. Therefore, the Government would be creating an offence that is not based on the person's intentions. We must look at these things in the proper perspective.

The Government insist every year that we have a proper balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, and they are now littering the country with charters that outline the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, citizens have fewer rights and fewer real freedoms than ever before. At the same time, the Government heap responsibilities upon them with which they cannot cope. These are the responsibilities of finding a home, of finding a job without proper training, of keeping a job and of paying a mortgage, which some people can no longer afford. The

Column 421

Government believe that it is right to heap all these responsibilities upon individuals, and the Labour party believes that there should be some backing and support from the Government rather than leaving responsibility solely with the individual and the family.

We believe that everyone has the right to be treated equally and fairly, with decency and respect. When we have a Labour Government--as I have said, 1992 will bring one--we shall embark upon the road of giving every citizen the dignity that he or she deserves.

9.41 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : The title of the debate--"Rights, freedoms and responsibilities"--obviously offers opportunities for participants heavily to focus on their own point of view. It is not surprising that the debate has followed that pattern in true form. On the whole, Opposition Members have tended to concentrate on rights while my right hon. and hon. Friends have concentrated on freedoms and responsibilities as well as on rights. I would say that the acquisition of rights and the exercise of freedoms in any democracy automatically entails the necessity of individuals to shoulder responsibilities. With that in mind, I want to take up the various issues that have been raised in the debate.

The issues fall into five different subjects--citizens' rights, prisons, the crime of joyriding as we have loosely described it, political asylum and women and womens' rights. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put before the House the various rights that they would like it to consider. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who I am sad to say is no longer in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) are looking for a change in the way in which our democratic processes are exercised. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) set out what a putative Labour Government might give, for example, to hon. Members representing parts of Scotland or Wales, or even Northern Ireland, if such an Administration were ever to be elected.

I have to remind hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies that they have not done too badly under a Conservative Government for the past 12 years. Considerable amounts of public money have gone into Scotland's coffers. The opinion polls have not responded with an admission, as it were, of the Government's generosity. I suspect that England's generosity will be recognised a little late when those who represent Scottish constituencies discover that it is easier to manage with the helpful hand of Government than on one's own. I suspect that the same warning should be given to those colleagues who wish to have the same sort of devolution brought in elsewhere. My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) concentrated on different aspects of the citizens charter. It is interesting that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton on housing were somewhat reflected by the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) when she replied to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Their observations

Column 422

should be noted by my ministerial colleagues in the Departments which have housing responsibilities. I undertake to draw that to their attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made an interesting point. He had looked closely at his constituency, which is a microcosm of what happens across the country, and it was no surprise to me when he said that law and order featured highly in the concerns of his constituents. I suspect that they feature highly in the concerns of everybody's constituents. It is something that any Government or any Member of Parliament would be foolish to ignore. My hon. Friend cited some good examples of matters that he believes to be worth pursuing. I am glad to note that there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in his constituency. It is an excellent record, to which many of us should aspire within our constituencies. He spoke of the importance of special constables, so he will be glad to hear that we are encouraging an increase in their numbers. I very much liked his idea of a crime prevention shop, and I shall certainly discuss that with my colleagues, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State at the Home Office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made an important point about his local airport.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke about the Chartists and drew an interesting parallel with the citizens charter. I do not share his gloomy view. He must know only too well that our citizens charter will give back power to the people who use public services. It will put the citizens, not the bureaucrats, first. It will make and measure the public standards that the individual has the right to expect. The rights of users of public services will be set out clearly and concisely.

The hon. Gentleman should not fear the other measures that the citizens charter will bring forth. More competitive tendering will, as it has in the past, improve the quality of public services. It will certainly make a considerable difference to the individuals who receive those services. I know that the hon. Gentleman has considerable interest in franchise and enfranchisement. We do not have any plans to force people to register or, indeed, to vote. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would find a great deal of resistance to any such measure, were he to introduce one.

I do not want to omit any hon. Member who has contributed to this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will understand if I do not comment on his speech. It is important to draw it to the attention of hon. Members, but I can go no further than that.

I was a little surprised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's attack on the prison mutiny Bill. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that deterrents are an important aspect of the criminal justice system. Without them, where would we be in trying to maintain any form of criminal justice? It is an important Bill, which also incorporates further offences relating to people who abscond or who mistreat and maltreat prison property. Again, that is something about which we feel strongly.

I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Woolf report, which was published earlier this year--and which we spent a great deal of time studying--has resulted in my right hon. Friend bringing forward a White Paper that accepts virtually every one of the report's recommendations. It is a bit rich of Opposition Members to criticise the

Column 423

Government's track record on what has happened to prisons. We inherited a disgraceful prison estate. It was in a filthy, decrepit and ruined state. The previous Labour Government made no investment in the prison system. We have had to invest billions of pounds in order to improve the prison estate.

Under no circumstances would we want to leave such an inheritance for those who have to go into the prisons and we have no intention of doing so since we have a programme based on the Woolf recommendations which we shall pursue in order to improve not only the prison estate and the prison buildings but the regimes within the prisons. Those improvements are set out clearly in my right hon. Friend's White Paper and we shall look forward to completing that programme in the next 10 years. It is important that, quite apart from the Criminal Justice Bill in which measures are being taken to ensure that those people who need not be sent to prison can do purposeful community service, we should also look carefully at what happens to those people who have to go to prison.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about the number of people in police cells. My right hon. Friend clearly said that he does not welcome the current situation. It is not one that we wish to see continuing. A number of things can be done about that and those steps are being taken quickly and treated seriously.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : The Minister told me all this at Easter when she promised me that the numbers ccontained in police cells in Greater Manchester would go down during the next six months. In fact, the numbers have gone up. What can she do tonight to convince the police officers of Greater Manchester who look after the prisoners in police cells that the situation will not continue for another 18 months?

Mrs. Rumbold : I accept and I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's criticism. Contrary to all the predictions of the experts and statisticians, we have seen an unprecedented surge in the number of people entering custody. That, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept, is not something that one could easily handle in a short period. A substantial amount of prison estate will be coming into operation in the next two or three months which will alleviate the great difficulties that the police are currently experiencing in Manchester. I should put it on record that we are grateful for the assistance that the police have given us in this matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of taking note of that.

Joyriding is an important matter to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) and my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), for Taunton and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) have touched upon that unpleasant crime. I give the House the categorical assurance that a Government Bill will be introduced to deal with that as a matter of urgency.

It is important that we increase the penalties for taking vehicles without consent when that offence is aggravated by damage or dangerous driving. We are considering a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment and an obligatory disqualification where appropriate. It is

Column 424

important that that message is clearly understood by all hon. Members. I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have brought the matter to our attention.

The subject of asylum was of great interest to many hon. Members, not least to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). I emphasise again that there is nothing in the Government's proposal that is detrimental to the interests of genuine refugees in Britain. The new appeal rights and faster recognition of their status represents clear benefits for genuine refugees. At present, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members, there are those who manipulate the system and evade the normal immigration controls. It has to be said on behalf of all residents in Britain that that is detrimental to all who live here and we cannot allow it to continue out of genuine fairness to those who have settled in Britain within the law.

There can be little doubt that that is an important measure and it is in no way the alarmist measure that Opposition Members were at pains to try to portray it as. That is a scandalous thing to do. The hon. Member for Belfast, South said as much, and the hon. Member for Eccles raised a point about refugee children.

There is a problem with children who arrive in the United Kingdom on their own. If parents are granted refugee status, their children will automatically share it. However, if children arrive by themselves, they must go through some process or another, as would any asylum seeker, regardless of their age. They will be taken into care and looked after by the social services. I hope that that information satisfies the hon. Member for Eccles. We should see fewer such cases, and eventually none at all, at immigration centres. Some children who arrive in the United Kingdom with adults are abandoned, and are found wandering around the airport. They must be fed and given shelter as a matter of urgency. Children form only a small percentage of those seeking asylum. Over the past two to three years, they numbered about 200 out of a total of 85,000 asylum seekers. We are examining the Refugee Council's recommendations and will consider them with the Department of Health. Equally, we are examining the convention on the rights of the child, as the hon. Member for Eccles wants us to do.

The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was encouraging about the Operation 2000 launch that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended last week, at which he gave his blessing to a considerable initiative by the private sector, in which 60 blue chip companies committed themselves to examining targets for women and ensuring that women achieve a better place in business, receive the correct training, and are encouraged to climb the ladder and to go through the so-called glass ceiling.

I refute the hon. Member for Barking's claim that Britain's progress with women's rights is not as good as elsewhere in Europe. The Government have been taking seriously their responsibilities in relation to European directives. We have negotiated on each of the points that the hon. Lady mentioned, and are working hard to ensure that directives do not impinge on or impair the hard-fought battles that women have won in respect of their employment.

It is important to note that Britain has the highest number of working women in the European Community. Admittedly, most of them work part-time, but that is because they want to do so, because that happens to fit in

Column 425

well with the domestic responsibilities that a substantial number of British women prefer to have. Opposition Members should recognise that women are working slowly but sensibly towards the benefits that they want to enjoy, and that they do not want to be subjected to the patronising and paternalistic attitudes that are adopted by some socialists, who would tell women, "This is what you must do." That point was sensibly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).

As to the eternal argument we have about women making their mark in Parliament as elsewhere, I will say to Opposition Members that the way in which they will get more women Members of Parliament is to work hard to ensure that 50 per cent. of Members of Parliament are women, rather than just the one or two who must be positively discriminated for, so that they are selected as candidates. Hon. Members should remember that, for 11 out of the 12 years of Conservative Government, we have had a woman Prime Minister. They should also remember that, out of 14 women on the Conservative Benches, four are now Ministers of State--one of the highest ranks in government. That is a good record.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Column 426

Funeral Expenses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

10 pm

Sir John Hunt (Ravensbourne) : I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter that was first brought to my attention at my constituency surgery on 6 July this year. That morning I received a call from Mrs. E. M. Serbey, an elderly widow living in Hayes, in my constituency. She told me of her distress that her claim for a social fund payment to meet the funeral expenses of a Mr. William H. Newlyn had been rejected.

Mr. Newlyn, who was disabled, had been a lodger at Mrs. Serbey's home. When he died, she paid for his funeral out of her own pocket and out of the goodness of her own heart, simply because no one else would take on the responsibility. It therefore came as a great shock to her when she was subsequently informed that her claim for reimbursement of the funeral expenses had been rejected by the Department of Social Security--a decision which, I concede, was later upheld on appeal.

The problem, and the complication, is that, although Mrs. Serbey was in receipt of community charge benefit both before and after the date of the funeral, and continues to be so entitled--and thus eligible for funeral payment--it seems that, owing to an oversight, she failed to complete the reapplication form for the benefit when it was sent to her by Bromley council in August last year. As no form had been received by Bromley council by 11 November, her claim expired.

Mrs. Serbey's benefit payments were then not restored until 14 December. There was thus a gap of approximately a month, during which Mr. Newlyn's funeral took place. The crucial point, as I see it, however, is that Mrs. Serbey remained technically entitled to community charge benefit throughout that period. As far as I am aware, that is not in dispute.

I therefore wrote to the Minister on 9 August, setting out the facts of the case and asking whether, in view of the special and unusual circumstances, a payment to Mrs. Serbey could be authorised to cover the funeral costs. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who replied, was sympathetic to Mrs. Serbey's predicament, I am afraid that her response was otherwise negative and disappointing. She declined to make the ex gratia payment for which I had been asking.

It was at that point that I decided to pursue Mrs. Serbey's claim by means of an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, she is being pressed for payment by the funeral directors, Messrs. J. and R. Killick, who have shown great patience but who are now understandably anxious for their account in the sum of £803 to be settled. As a result of an act of kindness, Mrs. Serbey is being subjected to very considerable stress and anxiety. She assures me that she has no other way of raising the sum of money involved. Moreover, she tells me that she is having sleepless nights because of her worries about how the money is to be found. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose kindness and consideration in these matters is well known to the House, to redress what I regard as a great unfairness and relieve the anxieties of an elderly widow living in my constituency.

Column 427

10.5 pm

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) for the clear and measured way in which he has set out the case for his constituent. He is well known for his sympathetic attitude to cases such as this, and he has stated Mrs. Serbey's case in a very compelling way. It is an unfortunate case. When these problems arise, they are usually combined with grief and worry for the person concerned. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent in her bereavement and the subsequent difficulties she has faced.

There is no dispute between my hon. Friend and me as to the facts of the case as he outlined them. There are, however, two important points that I wish to make clear now. First, Mrs. Serbey's claim is still the subject of an appeal that has been adjourned, pending further information which is being obtained from the London borough of Bromley.

Secondly, and in parallel with that, one of the members of staff from the district office of the Benefits Agency who is dealing with Mrs. Serbey visited her recently to see whether it might be possible to help her further immediately. The visit was arranged because Mrs. Serbey's circumstances have changed since her original claim. The final outcome is still not settled, but I can assure my hon. Friend that officials are doing everything that they can to help his constituent in her present difficulties.

I will, if I may, briefly set out the background to the Government's general policy and arrangements for help with the cost of funerals. My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a series of different arrangements. The original death grant was a fixed sum benefit, introduced in 1949. Only those who had paid the relevant contributions were eligible. The death grant was eventually abolished in 1987. Then there were exceptional needs payments and later single payments to people who received supplementary benefit. The payments made special provision for a small number of low-income households which had responsibility for the funeral of a close relative.

After 1987, those schemes were replaced by the current social fund funeral payments scheme. In my view, it has a number of important and valuable features. It provides a more effective way to target resources than the previous schemes. At the same time, it has extended the range of people on low incomes who are eligible for help. The move to include people on family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, as well as those on income support, has meant a significant increase in the number of low- income groups who receive real help with the cost of a funeral. It is a self-indexing scheme. No longer do we have to set an amount and uprate it by some index. Because entitlement is to the cost of a simple funeral, as the cost of funerals rises, the sum to which those people are entitled rises automatically.

The other point, which is of significance in the case of Mrs. Serbey, is that it is a regulated, not a discretionary system. It is not up to adjudication officers to use their discretion. If the regulations are followed, a person who qualifies will receive a funeral payment.

In general, the scheme is working well. There were almost 50,000 awards in the last financial year, costing about £30 million. The average cost per funeral was just over £600. Over a third of these awards went to people

Column 428

who were not on income support but on one of the other benefits, usually housing benefit, but in the case of Mrs. Serbey it was community charge benefit.

No matter how well a scheme works--I believe that the scheme is working in a sensible and sensitive manner--there will always be difficulties for some individuals, and that is the case for my hon. Friend's constituent. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, Mrs. Serbey was not awarded a funeral payment, because she was not receiving a qualifying benefit at the appropriate time- -her qualifying benefit was community charge benefit.

As I have said, I regret that there is a limited amount I can say about this case at this time, as there is still an outstanding appeal against the decision of the adjudication officer. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail prior to the outcome of that appeal. This appeal has been adjourned until further information is obtained from the borough which is responsible for the award of community charge benefit. As I have already said, our local office is trying its best to see whether there is any other way in which they can help Mrs. Serbey.

The main reason why the problem arose--there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this--is that, for a brief period, Mrs. Serbey did not claim community charge benefit. However, as my hon. Friend said, there was no lack in her underlying entitlement to the benefit. I am always sorry when someone loses by claiming too late, benefit to which they might have been entitled. The Department and the agencies do everything possible, through forms, leaflets, freeline services and other methods, to alert people to the benefits available and the time limits for claiming them. Local social security offices, citizen's advice bureaux and other organisations co-operate with us in trying to achieve that.

However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is for the individual concerned to ensure that they have claimed all the benefits appropriate to their circumstances. In this case, the benefit is administered by the local authority. As I understand it, the authority sent a reminder to Mrs. Serbey to renew her application, but no such renewal application was received.

Our social security system must be tied to precise dates of claim and time limits. If claims were not linked to precise dates or there were no time limits, it would be possible for people to assert their right to a particular benefit some considerable time after the event. In many cases, it would be impossible to decide whether the entitlement conditions had been satisfied. The extra administrative burden involved in deciding such cases could undermine our ability to pay benefit promptly to those making their claims on time. I am satisfied that the local office is doing its best to assist Mrs. Serbey. I am satisfied that the information available to her is adequate and that she is being closely advised. Until the outcome of that work and the outcome of her appeal are known, there is little more that I can add. I reiterate my understanding of and sympathy for my hon. Friend's constituent in her difficulties and my hope that they will be resolved swiftly.

Sir John Hunt : I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response. Can he give any indication of when the result of the appeal is likely to be known? This matter has been hanging over Mrs. Serbey for so long that it would be helpful to know when the result is likely to be known.

Column 429

Mr. Scott : I must be careful, because these matters are decided by independent adjudicating authorities. Before the weekend, the local office delivered to Mrs. Serbey a form for a fresh application. It was hoped that she would sign and return it to the person who delivered it. That was not possible. The sooner she can return it, the sooner the matter might be resolved by the adjudicating authorities in, I hope, her favour, but I cannot guarantee that. Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page