| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.33 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) spoke about quangos, and I am disappointed that the Government do not intend to do anything about them. The rights of Members of this House have been bypassed, because the Government have strengthened quangos and created more of them. Yet they said that they would not bring in more Government control.
I raise that point because of what happens when one asks a parliamentary question--about Government expenditure, say. For example, one of the biggest quangos in Scotland is Scottish Homes, and the taxpayer gives it a great deal of money to administer Scottish housing. I do
not complain about Scottish Homes as a landlord, but I expect it to be accountable to the House, because of the millions of pounds that have been paid to it.
Yet when a parliamentary question is asked, the Minister merely says, "I refer the hon. Gentleman to the chairman of Scottish Homes, who will write to him in due course." That is always happening, with Scottish Homes and with every other quango, and it means that hon. Members can do nothing but wait for an answer from the chairman or chief executive of one of those bodies. That is not good enough.
Last week we debated the powers of the House, and shortly after the debate on Nolan, an official was appointed to look into hon. Members' affairs. Many Conservative Members complained that we were taking away the powers of the House, and of Parliament in general--the high court of the land. Yet every day Ministers can shy away from answering our parliamentary questions and send them off to the chief executive or chairman of a quango. We may have to wait weeks for an answer, although the rule of the House is that we can ask priority questions, and even get Ministers to come before the House and answer questions. I am disappointed that nothing is to be done about that.
I cringe when I hear hon. Members say that we shall tackle the drugs problem--even the Prime Minister said that. He and others harp on about what happened 16 years ago, but I cannot recall any young boy or girl dying of a drugs overdose in my community 16 years ago. Last year, in my community alone, seven children died of drugs overdoses. Probably other hon. Members can say the same, because that has been the experience in their communities, too.
It is frightening when decent mothers and fathers are scared to allow their children to go to a youth centre without accompanying them to make sure that they come safely back to their own homes, yet that is the sort of society in which we are living now. I do not lay all the blame for that at the Government's door, but we are entitled to more from the Prime Minister of the day than a statement that he will tackle the drugs problem. How will he do that?
Only a short time ago, the Prime Minister sacked Customs and Excise officers, and now we read in the papers every day about tobacco and beer by the lorryload coming across from France on the ferry. If beer and tobacco can get through, I am sure that many other items can do the same. We should have been strengthening, not weakening, Customs and Excise.
I am disappointed, too, that nothing is to be done about the problem of the Child Support Agency. Like many other people, I have brought up my children in difficult circumstances, and I am proud of the fact that I have a close bond with my wife and family, which I value. But I am realistic enough to know that families break up.
I am the first to say that if legislation had been introduced to chase up fathers and mothers who were not fulfilling their responsibilities, I should have supported it. But at the moment couples can have amicable arrangements for maintenance, drawn up with lawyers, and the father can be paying the maintenance that has been agreed, when in steps the Child Support Agency with a rigid formula, insisting that a certain amount of money has to be paid--or else. That rigid formula is causing terrible stress up and down the country. If a family breaks
up and the husband is left on his own, a decent man will allow his ex-wife to take away whatever bits and pieces of furniture--such as a washing machine or a bed--are necessary for the wife to set up a new home. But the CSA formula does not allow for the father to buy a bed, a carpet or a washing machine for his home. That is ridiculous.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has left the Chamber, said that the taxpayer must not pay for other people's children. But most of the people whom the CSA is chasing happen to be taxpayers, because the CSA gets hold of men and women who are paying tax through PAYE. The CSA is putting people under so much pressure that some are questioning whether it is worth their while keeping their job, and those people may decide to disappear or give up their job.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell):
May I make two brief points to the hon. Gentleman? First, following a change to the rules earlier this year, we have now agreed that no absent parent can pay more than 30 per cent. of his net income--income after tax, national insurance and 50 per cent. of any pension contributions--in respect of maintenance. That gives protection that was previously lacking, and the hon. Gentleman is right that such protection should not be lacking in the future.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to cases where a maintenance agreement has been reached between a mother and father and in which the taxpayer is not involved. In the terms described by the hon. Gentleman, the CSA would not be involved in those cases. Where the taxpayer is involved, it is right and proper that the CSA should protect the interests of the taxpayer, the mother and the father. I hope that he will bear those two points in mind.
Mr. Martin:
Thirty per cent. of the take-home pay of someone who is on a low income--or even a reasonable income of, say, £200 a week after tax--is an awful lot of money. The Minister should speak to some of his Conservative colleagues if he does not want to take my word for it. A decent man or woman who wants to talk to a CSA official is not allowed to do so.
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire) indicated assent.
Mr. Martin:
I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. The CSA department for my area is in Falkirk, and I rang it yesterday on behalf of a constituent. The line was engaged several times. I, a Member of Parliament, was trying to get through to Falkirk. What must it be like for a man trying to earn a living in a factory? Does he have to ask his boss whether he can use the telephone? If he does not get through, does he have to ask his boss again in half an hour? The boss might ask him the reason, and he will have to reply that he is trying to call the Child Support Agency because he is having difficulties. What an undignified situation for any worker.
Mr. Mitchell:
I visited the Falkirk department of the CSA recently, and there is a dedicated telephone line for Members of Parliament and their assistants to get through to the department. If the hon. Gentleman was unable to get through yesterday, he should give me the details and I shall look into the matter. I can tell him that most of his colleagues in the House who have sought to get through
Mr. Martin:
The Minister is missing the point. What is the use of me ringing a direct line? I wanted to know what my constituents were putting up with, so I used the number that they must call. Field Marshal Montgomery did not have fancy meals because he wanted to know what his troops were eating, and one must find out what is going on. There is no point in me using a fancy line and then telling my constituents that I can get through. Of course I can get through. I am concerned about a chap who works for the parks department of Glasgow district council, for example, and who wants to get through but cannot because the line is engaged.
I am not here to legislate or argue for rascals who are not looking after their children. I am talking about decent men and women who are going through the trauma of a break-up, but who want to keep their relationships with their children. They do not want to let their children think that they are letting the family down, even if the parents are living in different homes. But a person who calls the CSA to ask for the formula to be explained to him will not be dealt with by an official of the CSA. He will be told that the CSA will arrange for someone in the local social security office to give him an interview.
The Government have told us about the citizens charter, and they want all the utilities to provide good services. But the Government would expect better from a utility than it sending people to a third party because it does not do interviews. There is a very serious problem. "The Cook Report" television programme last night stated that people were contemplating suicide because of their difficulties. I hope and pray that that is not the case.
Every hon. Member who is dealing with such cases would agree that the men and women who are working hard to try to keep their head above water and trying to maintain their relationship with their children have been hit the hardest. One of my constituents rightly wanted to make sure that his child stayed with him at the weekends. He and his ex-wife agreed that, in our modern society, the child needed a bed of his own. The man had to go out to buy a bed for his child, but the CSA would not take that into consideration in its formula.
The CSA does not take all travelling costs into consideration, and the Minister will agree that consideration is given only to the cost of substantial journeys to and from work. I think that I am speaking for many hon. Members when I say that it is time for a review of the system, and it is time for those who have responsibility for the matter to look at it in a humane fashion. They must remember that people are not out to run away from their children, and that they want to give their children the best in difficult circumstances. They should be given every opportunity to do so.
I was worried by the Government's statement before the recess about the privatisation of HMSO. There is no mention of it in the Gracious Speech. Conservative Members might ask why we should complain about that, when we always complain about privatisation. But I see some method in the Government's madness. I think that the Government intend to reduce HMSO to a rump, a small unit, so that they do not have to introduce legislation
in order to privatise it. That in turn means that the proposal will not be scrutinised by the House on Second Reading or in Committee, or by the other place.
The Government's proposals will have a profound effect on the important services of the House. Because of the dedicated work of Hansard, the printers and HMSO, all speeches are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office the following morning. If the Government reduce that service to a rump, the House, hon. Members and their support staff could lose an important service. The House does not have storage facilities for the publications that we need for our Standing Committees and Select Committees and for Hansard. Hon. Members should be aware that that is what the Government intend, and it will cause us hardship.
It is rightly said that the public, for whom we have a Public Gallery, and the media are entitled to scrutinise what we do and say. If we lose the excellent service that we have in Hansard, the facilities and the open government that we often boast about could be endangered.
How can an organisation that employs 2,800 people be reduced to 20 without damaging the services that we have in the House? That will not benefit the House or the taxpayer. If any private publishing company seeks to take over HMSO, it will zero in on the lucrative areas and dispense with the areas that provide a service to the British people.
Hon. Members have made representations to the Select Committee on Administration, of which I am the Chairman--I speak here in a private capacity--that colleges, schools and universities should be entitled to cheap editions of Hansard. That has been agreed by the House. Can there be a guarantee that that service will continue after privatisation? I put it to the House that that will not be the case.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |