Home Page

Column 1

T H E

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]

FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGN OF

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 234

SECOND VOLUME OF SESSION 1993-94

House of Commons

Monday 6 December 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

SOCIAL SECURITY

Family Support

1. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for families.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley) : We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to increase child benefit in line with prices. We have also already made extra help worth around £1 billion a year available to low-income families with children. From October 1994, we are introducing a £40 disregard of child care costs for claimants of family credit and housing benefit. This will remove one of the major stumbling blocks in enabling low-income parents to be better off in work and thus to reduce dependency on benefits.

Mr. Arnold : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £40 disregard in respect of child care costs is very much less than many organisations were pressing for? Does that not show the Government's determination to assist parents to get back into work?

Mr. Lilley : I think that my hon. Friend meant to say "more" than many institutions were pressing for. The


Column 2

booklet, "Becoming a Breadwinner", issued by the Day Care trust, advocated a £35 a week disregard. We are going for slightly more than that--a £40 a week disregard, which will be worth £28 a week for lone parents and working married couples returning to work.

Mr. Kirkwood : Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that future provision for families is part of the long-term series of reviews that his Department is conducting? Putting it neutrally, it is very difficult for people to conduct and engage him in sensible discussions about long-term future provision. In every speech that he makes and every television interview that he gives the Secretary of State is interpreted, rightly or wrongly, in different ways at different times. It is difficult to know whether the Secretary of State is coming or going. Would it not be better for him and for us if he were to make clear the remit of all the internal Government committees and what papers they are working to? We could then all engage in a proper public debate.

Mr. Lilley : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his positive contribution to the debate. I advise him to listen to what I say and to regard what I do, and not to listen to second-hand commentaries. He will then see a consistent theme. We believe in supporting and sustaining the traditional family and, wherever possible, encouraging families to consist of two loving parents. We accept that that is not always the case, and where families break up we want to provide support with the interests of the child in mind. That lies behind the measures announced in the Budget to enable parents to work and improve their well-being while providing proper child care for their children. That is consistent with everything that I have said and the Government have done. We would welcome any positive contributions from the Liberal Democrats, unusual as that might be

Mr. Winnick : In view of the remarks made by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not clear that child benefit will not be retained as a universal benefit if the Tories were to cling to office? In view of that, is there not every reason for people to be very concerned? The welfare state is being eroded and undermined at every stage. No one has any


Column 3

confidence that the Secretary of State or the Government believe in the welfare state, and there is every expectation that they will use their power to undermine it.

Mr. Lilley : The hon. Gentleman is peculiarly ill informed. There have been two statements about child benefit in the past 24 hours. I have reaffirmed the Government's manifesto pledge to maintain child benefit as part of our provision for families with children. The Commission for Social Justice, established by the Labour party, suggested that it should be abandoned and replaced by national child care.

Child Support Agency

2. Mr. Burns : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.

6. Mr. Spellar : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will suspend the operations of the Child Support Agency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt) : The Child Support Agency was set up to secure more maintenance more reliably for more children, and that is what it is doing. I have, of course, been examining the criticisms that have been made of some aspects of the new scheme. The work of the Child Support Agency in securing maintenance for children will continue.

Mr. Burns : Does my hon. Friend accept that most people--including the authors of the Select Committee report that was published this afternoon--acknowledge the principle that fathers, including absent fathers, should pay for the upkeep of their children? Will he bear in mind, however, that in areas such as Chelmsford, and even St. Albans, a significant proportion of the working population commute down to London and that total commuting costs are in excess of £200 per month? Given that the average non-endowment mortgage repayment is now just over that amount, would my hon. Friend be prepared to look again at the formula in respect of travel-to-work costs to establish whether something could be done to alleviate the burden for fathers?

Mr. Burt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and for picking up the fact that the Select Committee has today endorsed the basic principles and operation of the Child Support Agency.

My hon. Friend's point about provision in the formula for specific expenses was discussed extensively with the Select Committee. I believe that the Committee is coming to the same conclusion as the Government--that it is very difficult to make extra allowances for different kinds of expenses because what is essential to one is not essential to another. We have endorsed that principle and have therefore tried to ensure that the amount of income available to the absent parent is around 70 to 85 per cent. of net income in order to cover the costs.

The Select Committee made some recommendations, as well as making supportive comments. I shall examine those recommendations together with other aspects that have been raised with us in connection with our own review.


Column 4

Mr. Spellar : Regrettably, the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. Although he welcomed the report, he did not specify the parts to which the Government would respond.

Mr. Miller : We are usually given a statement in that time.

Mr. Spellar : As my hon. Friend points out, we seem to be given statements very quickly. These problems have been going on for a long time. Some Conservative Members may not have noticed that thousands of families across the country are being thrown into chaos. We have already had the first suicide resulting from the operation of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister recognise that the fundamental problem has been caused by an attempt to force all the individual circumstances of thousands of different families into a national straitjacket? Is it not time to suspend the agency's operations until proper guidelines can be incorporated and the matter returned to local determination?

Mr. Burt : I think that what has made the hon. Gentleman unhappy is the fact that his own campaign for the agency's suspension has not been endorsed by the Select Committee in any way. That is because the Committee understands that the agency is already working to produce maintenance for children and that the suspension of its operations would cause chaos for many families who are receiving the money. With respect, I feel that we must all be extremely careful in dealing with press reports, particularly those concerned with such sensitive issues as suicide. There can be many reasons for such tragic events, and we are certainly not aware that the Child Support Agency has been deliberately and provenly linked to any of them. It is, of course, much too early to respond to Select Committee recommendations published less than an hour ago. I have given the hon. Gentleman an undertaking--as I did in last Thursday's Adjournment debate-- to examine all these matters carefully, and we shall continue to do that. It should be noted, however, that the basic principle of what we are doing- -that is, moving away from a discretionary system to a national system based on a formula--has been endorsed.

Mr. Madel : May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about travel-to-work costs? Will my hon. Friend also note that people cannot appeal against their assessment until a review has taken place? The reviews need to be more thorough, as mistakes are being made. They also need to be carried out more quickly. Will my hon. Friend try to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency and speed up its operations?

Mr. Burt : I am sure that to ensure the acceptance of the principles of the Child Support Act it is essential that the agency should operate administratively as effectively as it can. To date, we have had only 174 appeals coming through the system. We shall keep a careful eye on the work of the independent tribunal service which considers those appeals. I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was well made.

Ms Rachel Squire : Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have said, the Child Support Agency should take account not only of travel expenses but of


Column 5

items such as council tax, insurance costs and fuel bills? Does he further agree that it is totally unreasonable to expect one of my constituents--who is one of many--to be asked to live on a meagre £6.49 a week after he has paid his bills and met the increased maintenance costs, which he has always paid up to now? Does the Minister agree that response is considerably overdue on the points that I raised with him in October and early November about my general concerns about the operation of the CSA, especially the way in which responsible parents who have always paid maintenance are targets who are asked to pay more, while those who are irresponsible and have paid nothing continually get away with it?

Mr. Burt : I am not happy to accept the figures offered by the hon. Lady and I would welcome her clarification of them as they do not correspond with what should be the situation. The matter of targeting has been considerably distorted by media reports which do not give due credibility to the fact that some half of the work going on at the CSA at the moment is concerned with cases in which no maintenance has been in payment at all. In response to whether there are soft targets and people being unduly picked on, I will quote briefly from one paragraph of the Select Committee report because it considered the matter carefully--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : What paragraph?

Mr. Burt : Paragraph 18. It states :

"A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial savings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one--"

Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the Minister that it is Question Time.

Mr. Burt : Yes, Madam Speaker. It continues :

"The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."

We strongly agree.

Mr. Barry Porter : I am pleased to have an opportunity to back the Government's policy of getting "back to basics", but does my hon. Friend accept that when we voted overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation we thought that it made sense that the evil absent father was to be the target. However, after all the letters that I and other hon. Members have had about the matter, surely the Government must now take into account all the objections, which I share with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), that there is something wrong and it ought to be put right.

Mr. Burt : The agency is indeed pursuing those who have not paid. Its take-on strategy was clearly declared before the Act came into force and the Select Committee considered that. We are looking at the matters of concern that have been raised, but I urge my hon. Friend to acknowledge that some parents have been traced by the agency who would never have been traced under the previous system. We are delivering what the public want through the agency.

Mr. Dewar : Does the Minister accept that it is essential to consider urgently the important recommendations made


Column 6

in the Select Committee report, especially those which add safeguards for second families, and deal with the protected income provisions? Will he also give an undertaking to look beyond the Select Committee report, especially at the experience in Australia, where it is possible to go to a review officer and depart from the usual rigid financial formula if special circumstances can be established? Will he consider the possibility of a disregard for income support to ensure that the children who are at most economic risk--those in families living on income support--gain support from a system which was introduced in their name and from which they often miss out?

Is not the Minister conscious of the very real danger that without urgent action there will be a breakdown of consent and that at the end of the day damage will be done to the very principle of parental responsibility?

Mr. Burt : I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Select Committee report will be due a proper reply when its recommendations are looked at carefully. I undertake that the Government will give that reply. In relation to the principle behind the agency, it will help if it is recognised that the Select Committee has looked carefully at the fundamental objections put to it, but that it has essentially endorsed the existing principle and the work of the agency.

In the majority report, the Committee has recognised the importance of shifting the burden from taxpayers to those who should be most responsible for paying--the parents. That is the principle to which the whole House previously held, and it has now been further endorsed. If the work of the agency in dealing with parents who have not paid and in tracing parents who have been difficult to trace were recognised as it should be, there would be greater understanding and acceptance of the principles of the work of the agency.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my hon. Friend agree that priority is now being given to cases in which a court order can no longer be given? Does he further agree that it is vital that parents who are already paying successfully should not in any way be victimised?

Mr. Burt : First, my hon. Friend is right to say that we give priority to parents who must use the agency because they have no other mechanism to use. That involves people who have some dependence on benefit as well as those who do not. Secondly, it cannot be classed as any form of victimisation to ask people to pay sums towards their children which they are due to pay under the law. We recognised from the start that there would have to be an increase in the amount paid in many cases to provide a realistic sum of maintenance. That work is going on and is another principle endorsed by the Select Committee. Given time, the principles will be accepted and the work of the House in passing the Act, with immense good will on both sides, will be vindicated.

Invalidity Benefit

3. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to safeguard the needs of those dependent on invalidity benefit ; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that my right hon. Friend made to the House last


Column 7

week. He said--and I repeat--that there will be no cash losers among existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit at the point of change.

Mr. Wigley : Is the Minister aware that citizens advice bureaux in all parts of these islands are reporting cases of severely disabled people having their invalidity benefit withdrawn? They say that when the cases go to appeal, the independent tribunal service comes out against the Benefits Agency. Is he aware of the cases of disabled people being told that they should be looking for jobs such as swimming pool attendants, embalmers or artists' models? Surely that is not the road we should be going down. Will the Minister give an assurance that in any new regime severely disabled people will not be put in an invidious position?

Mr. Scott : The simple target set by the replacement of invalidity benefit with incapacity benefit will be to ensure that those who are rendered incapable of work by reason of their medical condition will receive benefit. Those who do not pass that test will not.

Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who will most welcome a more rigorous medical check for cases of invalidity benefit are those of our constituents who are genuinely incapable of work due to disability of one sort or another?

Mr. Scott : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Another group who will widely welcome the reforms being introduced are general practitioners who have not found it an attractive duty to be gate-keepers for the existing benefit.

Mr. Bradley : Is not the truth about the new incapacity benefit best summed up by the Disability Alliance, which described it as "penny pinching at its most callous"?

Will the Minister confirm that terminally ill people who are eligible for the new benefit will have to wait 12 months before they receive the full rate of entitlement? Will he explain today the objective difference in employment prospects for persons who, according to the new test, will receive 25 points if they "cannot remain standing unassisted" and for persons who will receive only 21 points because they cannot remain

"standing unassisted for more than a few minutes"?

Mr. Scott : On the medical tests, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have published a consultation document which is now being considered by a number of organisations and individuals. A panel of some 80 people is being recruited to analyse the tests and to make judgments on their effectiveness. We believe that that is the right way--it is based, after all, on the methodology used by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on which the disability living allowance was based. That is a sound way of judging entitlement to the new benefit. We shall consult widely, and we will listen in particular to medical opinion about the effectiveness of the tests.

The hon. Gentleman knows that special arrangements have been made under the DLA for all claims from terminally ill people to be put on to a special fast track. That target is now being met and exceeded for those benefits.

Mr. Ian Taylor : Will my right hon. Friend take no nonsense from the Opposition on this, as benefits paid to the sick and the disabled have trebled to £15 billion up to


Column 8

this year? Does that not show the Government's commitment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that existing beneficiaries will not have to pay tax on their benefits under the new arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend restate the Government's concern, and will he make sure that there is no misunderstanding or scaremongering by the Opposition?

Mr. Scott : I confirm what my hon. Friend says. Existing beneficiaries are not to be taxed. In general, we have taken the view that benefits paid as income replacement should be subject to tax ; that is why the new benefit will be taxable.

Disability Living Allowance

7. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability claims are outstanding at the present time.

Mr. Scott : I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to claims for disability living allowance. At 30 November, the latest date for which information is available, there were 25,372 such claims on hand.

Mr. Skinner : Are not the Government more interested in looking after themselves and their big business allies than in looking after the disabled? Is it not a scandal that they are now talking about imposing new tests on people who claim disability, invalidity and unemployment benefits? Why can Ministers who fall ill get money every week and every month without having to go through one of these ludicrous tests? The Secretary of State is sitting next to the Minister. How would the right hon. Gentleman like to have to push a wheelbarrow, hold a 5 lb bag of potatoes in either hand or wear a saucepan on his head? And is that not all that he is fit for?

Mr. Scott : If the hon. Gentleman will calm down slightly, he will learn that the Government have a record of helping the disabled unparalleled by any previous Administration. We have trebled the resources which go to the long-term sick and the disabled through the benefits system and a number of other improvements have been made to provisions for the disabled.

I find it objectionable that the hon. Gentleman makes mock, in essence, of the system that we are endeavouring to provide. That system was properly prepared to introduce DLA, which has had widespread support from organisations of and for disabled people. We intend to use that system for a new benefit and we are consulting widely--not least with those organisations.

Mr. John Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have benefited from DLA? Does my hon. Friend remember the speeches in Committee from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) implying that few people would benefit? Does my hon. Friend agree that many have done so?

Mr. Scott : More than 1 million people have now benefited from the introduction of DLA, and their claims are being dealt with at an ever- increasing rate. We know that there were difficulties when DLA was introduced, due to a surge in claims which came because of the attractiveness of the benefit. The Benefits Agency now is exceeding by a considerable margin each target that it has been set for the delivery of benefit.


Column 9

Mr. Sheerman : Whatever happened to basic values? In the good old days of basic values, when there was incompetence from a Secretary of State and a mix-up of the kind that happened with DLA, did not Ministers resign? Will not all the trouble, distress, heartache and ill-health which was brought on disabled people by the delays and the incompetence be repeated by the incapacity benefit? Is it not a fact that disabled people who are now on those benefits do not know what the criteria will be? Will the Minister start saying something about the criteria--in particular in relation to the sensitive subject of mental ill health and people suffering from stress-related diseases?

Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman will recall that I apologised for the difficulties over the introduction of DLA both to the House and to those who suffered distress as a result. That is all behind us now and I do not believe that the new benefit will run into such difficulties. Let me make it clear, not so much to the House as to the audience outside, that the new benefit will not come in until 1995 and that there is ample time for proper provision to be made for its introduction and for all decisions about the nature and operation of the tests to be properly considered before that date.

Child Benefit

8. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many increases in child benefit have been announced in the past two years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague) : Child benefit has already been increased three timesince October 1991 and my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday a further increase to take effect in April 1994.

Sir Michael Neubert : Can my hon. Friend confirm that Government spending on families with children has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979 --over and above price increases in that time--and that our child benefit scheme compared favourably with European equivalents? Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that it is wise not to exclude the possibility of any change in the scheme in the future, given the Government's strategy of targeting assistance on those most in need?

Mr. Hague : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large increase on spending on families with children--a 50 per cent. increase since 1979, compared with an 8 per cent. reduction between 1974 and 1979, which Opposition Members should remember. On the question of future policy, I should say to my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment remains absolutely clear : child benefit remains the cornerstone of our policies for families and children, helping mothers who remain at home as well as those who work.

Child Support Agency

10. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will conduct an urgent review into the operation of the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Lilley : I have always made it clear that we will be keeping the policy under review. We are looking at the comments and concerns raised and testing them against the


Column 10

basic principles of the new scheme, which were endorsed by members of all parties. If, after examination, we think that we can make the scheme better still, we will do so.

Mr. Williams : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Child Support Agency is expected to raise £550 million in this financial year and that, of that total, only £50 million will go to help support children? Will he tell us what the agency is really for? Is it simply to help the Treasury, or does it have a role in supporting children?

Mr. Lilley : The purpose of the agency is twofold--first, to ensure that both parents accept responsibility for maintaining their children and, secondly, that the taxpayer should contribute only if parents do not have the resources to maintain their children. I was glad that that principle was endorsed by the Select Committee on Social Security in its report published earlier today.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Paragraph?

Mr. Lilley : Eighteen again. The report states :

"The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."

Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend note that half the questions asked today have been related to the Child Support Agency? We are delighted to hear that he is suggesting that the whole matter could be reviewed in the light of what the Select Committee said today and because of the common -sense practical approach that he takes to such matters. I have come across a number of serious problems in my constituency. I am absolutely convinced that the 60 or so people who came to see me the other day are not inventing the difficulties about which they told me and I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the representations that he has received and, if necessary, to make the appropriate adjustments to the statutory formula, to ensure that the agency works as intended in line with the principles on which we all agree.

Mr. Lilley : I am glad that, like most hon. Members, my hon. Friend accepts the principles on which the agency is based. There have, of course, been widespread protests. My hon. Friend will remember that, before the agency began its work, I spoke to him and to many other colleagues in the House and warned them that although the expectation would be resistance from and difficulties for women when the agency was introduced, in fact the reaction would come from men who were reluctant to pay in full the costs of maintaining their children. We must recognise that there is inevitably some resistance to paying in full the costs of maintaining children if people have not been doing so until now.

Mr. Ingram : Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real anger--as evidenced in questions that have been raised by Conservative Members, and, not least, by hon. Members from other parts of the House--at the way in which the Act has been implemented in practice and that the patience of those who have been targeted by the agency is rapidly running out? When does he expect his Ministeldren, not the Treasury?

Mr. Lilley : The hon. Gentleman talked about targeting and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained that the take-on schedule of the agency has not been


Column 11

changed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 96 per cent. of the cases so far contacted by the agency, the mother and child are on benefit and the father usually has a reasonable income. That fact has not come over in many of the representations that have been made. It is rare for the fathers to mention that they have been content to leave their child, and the mother of their child, on benefit. Two thirds of those whom we are taking on this year have been paying no benefit at all and we have been much more successful than many people suggest in tracking down absent fathers who had left without any trace--92 per cent. have now been traced. We will take those facts into account while keeping the agency under review, as well as the points that the hon. Gentleman made, which, of course, I recognise also have a significance.

11. Mr. Tredinnick : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which Child Support Agency decisions have resulted in a second wife making a contribution to the maintenance of the first wife.

Mr. Burt : There are no circumstances in which a second wife of an absent parent will be required to contribute to the maintenance of the first. Details of the earnings of an absent parent's new partner are needed for just two reasons : first, to assess whether she can afford to contribute towards the upkeep of her own children in the new relationship ; and, secondly, to determine whether the amount of maintenance that the absent parent has been assessed to pay can be reduced under the protected income provisions.

Mr. Tredinnick : Does my hon. Friend agree that, however laudable his aims, there are real problems faced by fathers when they receive a bill for 15 weeks' maintenance if they have not been quick enough off the mark in getting the form in? Does he further agree that that, for whatever reasons, is causing real hardship and that there is a danger that the second family will end up trying to support the first family through a circuitous route?

Mr. Burt : On my hon. Friend's point about arrears, it is not the case that those arrears need to be paid off immediately ; the agency fully understands the impact that a sizeable amount of arrears might have on a family and it is possible to negotiate with the agency how the arrears should be paid off. It should also be remembered that there is another voice, which tends not to come out in press reports, and has not come out much here, although it has been commented on by the Select Committee. At the end of all this, there is a parent and a child who are entitled to receive the maintenance. That voice is all too rarely heard.

As to my hon. Friend's point about protection of the second family, they are protected through the formulae. Matters that my hon. Friend and others have raised will be taken into account.


Next Section

  Home Page