| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Adjournment Debates
34. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many subjects have been raised in Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective in January 1995. [18025]
Mr. Newton: I assume that my hon. Friend is interested in private Members' Adjournment debates. There have been 190 daily and 188 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective. I should add for the sake of completeness that there have also been 41 Government debates on the Adjournment.
Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the success of his reforms, which have confounded the sceptics, increased the amount of time available to private Members and enabled many more topics to be raised than were raised under the previous system?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may utter those kind words. I shall receive them with the pleasure that they deserve.
EU Question Time
37. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for a specific Question Time for European Union matters. [18029]
Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so, in case that was not clear from my earlier answer.
Mr. Banks: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? He said that the practice of allocating a specific time to Common Market questions was scrapped. I believe that that was in 1979, after the election. Why was it scrapped? Surely it is wrong that we should have to rely on the luck of the draw in order to raise European Union issues when clearly Europe is one of the most significant matters, if not the most significant matter that the House is currently discussing. Why cannot we have a change? Is it because the Conservative Government are too embarrassed about answering questions from their own Back Benchers on the European Union?
Mr. Newton: I have some information about the history. I understand that the European Community slot was abolished in 1985, following pressure from some hon. Members and discussions through the usual channels. The matter was then looked at again in 1989, when my predecessor, the official Opposition and the Clerk of the House expressed scepticism about the reinstatement of such a slot.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from a Minister to make a statement? You will be aware that the Government's scheme to privatise the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency was defeated in another place on Friday by 124 votes to 64. You will also be aware that the Prime Minister said, with regard to the privatisation of the Post Office, "We are democrats.If there is no majority, we do not proceed." This House needs a statement from the Government on how they intend to proceed. Are they to abandon the scheme? Are they to report it to a Select Committee? Or are they to bring it to this House for a debate and vote?
Madam Speaker: As far as my authority is concerned, I can answer only the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance. It is an unhappy subject relating to the printing of the embossed notepaper of the House of Commons, which carries the portcullis. It has come to my attention that the proprietor of the firm which prints it--Wilprint of Cardiff--was sent down for corruption for four months just before Christmas and came out in January. The portcullis and all our proceedings have to be seen to be entirely above board and free of even the most indirect taint of corruption. Could you explain to me how I should draw the matter to the attention of the proper authorities so that we can ensure that the portcullis of the House and the notepaper on which we write carry the respect that we always thought they had?
Madam Speaker: I had hoped to call the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Member answering for the House of Commons Commission today, but it was not appropriate. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which is new to me, I shall take it up with the Serjeant at Arms to see what can be done. The hon. Gentleman may also care to put a question to the House of Commons Commission so that we are all aware what the answer is.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If the people of Cardiff do not want the work, there are many fine printers in Harrow who do.
Madam Speaker: We have very good printers in West Bromwich, West, too.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Aggrieved Members are always in a
weak position to raise points of order, but I am fortified by the fact that I was lucky enough, by virtue of the low number of questions to the Commission, to be called today. From that position of strength, may I ask whether it is satisfactory that in 45 minutes we should have had only 10 questions on transport? When I first came here, 25 to 30 questions were got through.
Madam Speaker: I am absolutely delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow(Mr. Dalyell). He is a regular attender in the Chamber and must have heard me many times urging hon. Members to put short questions and Ministers to give brisk answers. We do not proceed through the Order Paper as briskly and effectively as I would like. I keep records every day of how far we proceed and every few months, I give them to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in the hope that they will urge Ministers and Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to proceed more efficiently at Question Time. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which enables me once again to urge all hon. Members and Ministers to deal more briskly with questions.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You referred to regular attendance. Do you think that the thin attendance in the Chamber outside of Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday--there were fewer than 40 Back Benchers present for questions today--is linked with the fact that the media have stopped reporting the House?Is it not unfortunate that the heart of our parliamentary democracy is not being reported by the seriouspress?
Madam Speaker: Are we having a question-and-answer session? I have lots of views about why the serious press does not report the House as I think that it should, but this is not the appropriate time for me to express them. The time may come when I can do so and then I will do it very forcefully.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How times change. I was reading in the Library the other day that on 29 February 1968,. Members started on a Thursday with overseas aid and got to Question 33. That was followed by the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who answered Eric Heffer twice--Questions 4 and 5. At that time, the press reported everything that went on in the House. I think that there is a law that says that the press reports in inverse proportion to the number of questions asked in the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: I remember a time in the House when Members did not put supplementary questions.That dates me.
ESTIMATES DAY[2nd Allotted Day, 1st Part]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1995-96
Class XIII, Vote 4
Department of Social Security
[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994-95 on the Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382); the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3148); and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98 (Cm. 2813).]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead):
I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, for which we thank the Liaison Committee and partly also the Department, whose supplementary estimate is such that it will allow hon. Members to speak on any aspect of its work and remain in order. I spent some time trying to think of an aspect of the Department's work that would be out of order, butI could not think of one. Perhaps other hon. Members will be more effective than me in that respect.
In opening the debate, I shall concentrate on one topic to which we gave some prominence in our fifth report on the work of the Department and its agencies and which we debated in the House last week, debated in Committee and have another opportunity to debate today--fraud.I wish to take the debate on and suggest some changes in its nuances that I believe are important not only for the House but for the taxpayers--those who are in work and who contribute £15 every day from their pay towards underwriting the social security budget.
First, I emphasise the importance of housing benefit fraud committed by landlords rather than that committed by claimants. Those who have heard me speak before know that I think fraud is wrong full stop, but as any Administration will have limited resources to combat fraud, it is sensible to deploy the resources in those areas where it is most prevalent. I fear that there may have been a difference in emphasis between the Select Committee on Social Security and the Secretary of State on that. When we questioned him on that aspect on Wednesday, we talked about evidence of landlord fraud and he said to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes),"Not evidence--assertions".
I was referring to the evidence that the London borough of Haringey has put together. It has carried out a survey of landlords who have more than 30 claims paid direct to
them every week. On the first 15 cases, the borough has carried out 1,300 visits so far--that is one borough, for a survey that is, so far, incomplete. That contrasts vividly with the Government's survey of housing benefit fraud, which they carried out throughout the country and which covered 4,500 claims. I am talking not about 4,500 investigations, but about 4,500 claimants, who were asked about their claims. If they could remember accurately what they had said when they first claimed benefit, no further investigations were undertaken.
Although the Government publicised that as a fraud survey, it was slightly misleading to the House and to those outside to do so because they were testing people's memories. I have a bad memory and would probably have failed to answer the questions correctly. I would not be able to remember what I said when I originally made a claim, which might have spurred the Government into further action by suggesting that there was fraud.The Government undertook, not a fraud inquiry, but a test of memory.
Let us consider the Haringey inquiry about which the Secretary of State was somewhat dismissive in the Select Committee. It was not carrying out a memory test. It has called at properties to question landlords and claimants where a landlord has more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to him in any one week. The council checked the national insurance number of each claimant and asked for further evidence from utility bills. It also checked in other boroughs whether double claims were being made and studied council tax payments.
For this debate, I asked Haringey to give us information on the first 15 landlords on which it called. I emphasise that those were landlords who had more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to them each week. I asked Haringey what the fraud rate was. Obviously, I will not read out the names of the landlords concerned or their agents as that would be unfair. I will refer to them by number.
The first landlord called on as part of the survey had 112 housing benefit claims paid direct to him each week--more than £13,000 was paid direct to that landlord in housing benefit--and 25 per cent. were shown by the Haringey anti-fraud inquiry to be fraudulent. The second landlord had 111 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling more than £13,000 of public money, and the fraud rate was 23 per cent. The third landlord had only 39 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling almost £3,000 a week of public money, and the fraud rate was 67 per cent.
The fourth landlord had 46 direct payments made to him every week, totalling some £4,000, and 26 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The fifth landlord had111 claims directly paid to him or her every week, totalling some £11,000, and 16 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The sixth landlord had 121 direct payments made to him every week, totalling almost £8,000 from public funds, and 15 per cent. were shown tobe fraudulently claimed. The seventh landlord had141 claims paid directly to him or her everyweek, totalling almost £9,000 from public funds, and11 per cent. were fraudulently claimed.
The eighth landlord had 42 claims paid directly, totalling almost £8,000 a week, and 33 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The ninth landlord had112 claims paid directly, totalling almost £11,000 a
week, and 59 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The 10th landlord had 69 claims paid directly each week, totalling more than £6,000 of public funds, and29 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The 11th landlord had 58 claims paid directly to him or her a week, totalling more than £7,000, and 15 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent.
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.--[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |