| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Agency
11. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the CSA has stopped maintenance orders for children made by the courts in the course of administering the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. [14361]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The agency will normally become involved in cases with court orders only when a relevant benefit is involved. The agency has no business need to record the number of such cases.
Mr. Griffiths: May I draw the Minister's attention--as I already have--to the case of a constituent of mine? The Child Support Agency went to court last May, and asked for her £30-a-week payment under a court order to cease. She is still not receiving any money under the child support arrangements. Thankfully, her former husband has started to make the payments voluntarily, but how many other mothers may have had their court orders stopped by the CSA, and may still be receiving no child support nine months later?
Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that case, but, like him, I understand that the position has now improved.
The real issue is the amount of enforcement that takes place, and the effectiveness of that enforcement. The system is clearly becoming better, but it must be seen to be fair. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that 5,000 deduction of earnings orders were issued last month, and that 2,500 liability orders have been issued in the past year. That is partly why the flow of money to mothers is increasing; we are determined that it should continue to do.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Child Support Agency has tracked down no fewer than 117,000 feckless fathers who have shoved off without paying for their children? Does he agree that men who father children should expect to pay the costs of bringing them up, rather than leaving it to other families, who have their own responsibilities?
Mr. Mitchell:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CSA has traced 120,000 absent parents; moreover, there has been a steep increase in its ability to establish paternity. That is very important to parents with care who are not receiving the maintenance to which they are entitled. My hon. Friend will also have noted that, in some 77 per cent. of cases taken on by the agency, the mother is receiving no maintenance at all. We are determined to ensure that the agency's work continues in the way described by my hon. Friend.
Ms Eagle:
No one will object to the idea that fathers have a duty to pay for their children, but does the Minister agree that it is just not good enough to set a target of only 75 per cent. accuracy? That means that one in four of the agency's assessments are plain wrong.
Mr. Mitchell:
The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to the earlier answer in which we spoke of the challenging increase in targets. The agency is not only increasing the accuracy of its maintenance assessments to within 1p--that is vital--but simplifying the maintenance formula to speed up the process of arriving at an agreed assessment, and to make it more accurate.
12. Mr. Pawsey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount spent on social security in the United Kingdom; and what was the equivalent figure in 1989. [14362]
Mr. Lilley:
Spending on social security in Great Britain is expected to be around £87 billion this year, as against £59 billion in today's prices in 1989.
Mr. Pawsey:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an increase in social security spending is not sustainable? Will he consider two possibilities: first, redoubling his efforts to control social security fraud; and secondly--and perhaps more importantly--taking a leaf out of the book of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and establishing a national advisory committee to report to the House on social security matters?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is right. We cannot let spending on social security increase at the rate that it has done since the system was established under Attlee in the late 1940s--5 per cent. a year on average in real terms. My reforms, however, have already reduced the rate of expenditure growth to little more than 1 per cent.--which is only half the growth of national income--so having been the principal engine of rising costs and tax, it is now set to leave scope for lower taxes as long as we avoid the pitfalls of the Labour party's proposals.
Mr. Pike:
Will the Secretary of State accept that it is still a scandal that, in 1995, 46.1 per cent. of the social fund, which is to help people most in need in this country, goes on administration? Should we not have a scheme that gets more money to those people, who are so desperately in need?
Mr. Lilley:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to cut running costs. When it was announced about a week ago that we were hoping to cut
It is time for the hon. Memeber for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to withdraw his statement that that would go past breaking point and cause longer delays, more mistakes and worse service.
"Following Peter Lilley's announcement last week that he is seeking to axe his department's running costs by a quarter, I have been making some informal enquiries about the feasibility of his plans.
The advice I am getting . . . suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of investment already undertaken."
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14380]
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Jones: Does Prime Minister accept Sir Richard Scott's judgment that the Attorney-General was personally at fault? Given the collapse in public confidence in him, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started referring to him as unassailable?
The Prime Minister: I have to say that I believe that the Attorney-General acted perfectly properly throughout this whole affair.
- "How the narrative of fairness can be fabricated into an indictment of the Attorney-General, I fail to follow."
Mr. Mackinlay: It is because he is an awful lawyer.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) below the Gangway says because I was quoting the defence counsel at the Matrix Churchill trial.
Mr. Matthew Banks: On a different point, does my right hon. Friend recall the dark days of nationalised industries when they cost the taxpayer £50 million a week? Is he able to contrast that with the position now where, in the private sector, they contribute £50 million to the national coffers? Is that not about five new schools a week? Is that not something that the Labour party simply has not grasped?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the advantages of private ownership over public ownership. We have seen this in a wide range of areas over many years. I have no doubt that, wherever appropriate, things are better handled in the private sector and should be in the private sector rather than in the public sector. That is so in terms both of the experience
that we have of the way in which the private sector operates and of the general demand to make this country competitive, with the lowest possible tax regime consistent with that.
Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the specific finding of Scott that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, and agreed not to inform Parliament and the public, and that that failure was deliberate and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability? Does he agree with those specific findings of Scott or not?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman takes time to read the whole of Sir Richard Scott's report, he will see that Sir Richard accepts that Ministers regarded not that there was not a change of the guidelines but that there was an interpretation of the guidelines against changing circumstances. Sir Richard accepts explicitly that Ministers regarded the relaxed interpretation
- "as being a justifiable use of the flexibility believed to be inherent in the Guidelines."
[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members are laughing. That is Sir Richard's view and I agree with him on that point.
Mr. Blair:
The point that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about comes before that about whether the guidelines were changed; it is whether he is prepared to accept the specific findings in D4.42 of the Scott report that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, that they agreed specifically not to tell Parliament, and that that agreement in Sir Richard's words was "deliberate" and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability. Rather than the general, will he answer that specific? Will he tell us whether he agrees with that paragraph of the report--yes or no?
The Prime Minister:
What Sir Richard says is that the reason for the decision not to inform Parliament was because of a concern that to do so
that is to say, jobs. That is a direct quotation from what Sir Richard had to say.
Mr. Blair:
That is simply not the case. Sir Richard gives specifically the reason why Ministers did not tell Parliament and the public. He said:
That is a quite different matter. [Interruption.] Does not the matter go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy? On virtually every page of the report there are details of answers that are inaccurate, untrue, misleading. Is no one going to take responsibility for that? Have no Conservative Members got the courage? Does none of them want to hold Ministers to account? If the Prime Minister cannot answer and say whether he agrees with the paragraph--it is his report, which he set up, on which he spent money--the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will remain knee deep in dishonour.
The Prime Minister:
On the question of defence exports, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman--he may
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the Labour Government's position? He huffs and puffs with false indignation. If he had a shred of honesty himself, he would admit that the two central charges levied at the Government repeatedly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his hon. Friends have been found to be untrue and should be withdrawn.
Sir Michael Marshall:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an increasingly competitive and turbulent world, this or indeed any Government must take great care in the way in which they balance national interest and the promotion of British exports? Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are honourable Members and that they should be given some degree of trust and flexibility, as the Labour party would give its Ministers if it were in government? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should have a care.
The Prime Minister:
I think that there are some substantive points, which tend to get lost amidst these exchanges, and I shall tell the House what the important ones are. We did not export lethal weapons to Iraq, unlike many other countries. No British troops in Kuwait faced British weapons, and our guidelines for the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were at least as strict as, and probably stricter than, those of any other country. That is the reality that the British nation needs to understand, and that the Opposition seek to hide.
Mr. Ashdown:
Can the Prime Minister think of any other organisation in Britain, except perhaps British Gas, in which senior executives who had been criticised by an independent inquiry in the terms in which his Ministers have been criticised by Scott would be allowed by the boss to hang on to their jobs?
The Prime Minister:
Again, the right hon. Gentleman resorts to partial understanding. Whether that is a tactic or whether the right hon. Gentleman really understands only partially, is something that neither I nor the House has ever been able fully to understand. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole report, he will realise that the central charges levied, the charges that required me to set up the report so that they could be impartially examined and laid to rest, have been impartially examined, and have been laid to rest.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth:
Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Telegraph this week about the relative competitiveness of British industry? It was entitled, "Britain advances, Germany retreats". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our vital interests lie in free trade, free markets, free enterprise policies and freedom from the social chapter and from the other Euro-meddling so beloved by the Labour party?
The Prime Minister:
I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the economic circumstances
Q2. Mr. Alan W. Williams:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14381]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Williams:
Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury again and again, in letter after letter to hon. Members, misled Parliament about the arms sale policy to Iraq, and consistently failed to discharge his duty of ministerial accountability to Parliament?
The Prime Minister:
No; I have made the point before, and I shall reiterate, that I do not believe that my right hon. Friend deliberately misled Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I do not believe that. The requirement to inform Parliament is clearly set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"--and the reason why the House knows that is that I arranged for its open publication for the first time. Unlike previous Governments, who were asked to publish it by their own Back Benchers, I published it without being asked. Previous Governments were asked, and declined to publish.
Mr. Butcher:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as having the fullest support of the British people, both in Ulster and on the mainland, in pursuing the peace initiative, he also has the widespread support of the British people both in Ulster and on the mainland in vigorously pursuing those who wish to damage the civil liberties of the people of London and elsewhere, through a bombing campaign? Does he further agree that those who wish to damage the civil liberties of our people should not be too surprised if their own civil liberties are damaged in the pursuit of justice?
The Prime Minister:
We are determined to maintain law and order and democratic principles and we shall continue to seek and hunt down those responsible for the recent attacks. We give the highest priority to the security of citizens on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Each of the three bombs in the past 10 days or so has been the act of men callously unconcerned
Q3. Mr. Foulkes:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14383]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
Mr. Foulkes:
Does the Prime Minister agree that, since the Chief Secretary has repeatedly given inaccurate and misleading information to Parliament and to the public, he is the ideal man to present the Tory party's tax plans at the next election?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend will be presenting tax plans from this Dispatch Box after the election also.
"might be detrimental to British trading interests"--
"the overriding and determinative reason was a fear of strong public opposition".
"It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to individual countries."--[Official Report, 10 June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 396-97.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |