| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the intention is that the panel should start from the point of considering what people need in every part of London and that it should take it from there, rather than starting from the institutions and working back.
Mr. Dorrell: Will the Secretary of State clarify one point that has come up this morning in questions from several hon. Members--that is, the extent to which the panel will be able to review the weighted capitation formula and the flow of funds both within London's health service and between London and the surrounding districts? Will it be within the terms of reference of the review to make recommendations for changes to the weighted capitation formula? If it is, can the Secretary of State assure the House that any recommendation would take account of interests outside London, which would clearly be affected if the weighted capitation formula were to be changed?
Mr. Dobson: The panel will look at every aspect that has an impact on health provision in London; that is what we want it to do. If the panel concludes that changes are necessary, it will no doubt recommend them. On the point about the impact of the financing of provision in London on other areas, it is worth remembering that London also provides considerable services to people from other areas. There is a matter of striking a balance.
At the end of all this process, when the independent panel has given its views on all those matters, Ministers will have to take decisions, and we shall not shirk from taking them. As I said in my statement, all those decisions will have to be taken in the light of the public recommendations of this distinguished, independent panel. That will be a change and a step forward for the national health service.
Mr. Corbyn:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a welcome departure that the Secretary of State attempted to inform as many hon. Members as possible that today's statement was coming up. Can you confirm that under the previous Administration, Opposition Members were never informed in advance of statements?
Madam Speaker:
I am not aware of how hon. Members are informed about statements. I am just concerned that they are informed and that I am told in good time myself.
Child Support Agency
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
11.45 am
Mr. Kirkwood: I had just made the point that I was deeply sceptical about the rightness of a formula-based approach to assessments by the CSA. I believe that Ministers have to be careful because they are initiating a review that may lead to changes. I believe that they are initiating that review in good faith, and I support their intention, but they must learn the lessons of the previous Parliament.
Some welcome changes were made. The previous hon. Member for Gedling and particularly the former hon. Member for Bury, North listened to hon. Members and introduced some welcome changes on departures, travel to work and pre-1993 property settlements. They made the changes in good faith, but the result was that the procedures became more cumbersome and complex and the delays increased. Delays are now a real part of the problem.
Can the Minister confirm that it is still the CSA's intention to try to clear the backlog between now and 1999, which was the previous target? That is a long time away. I understand the Secretary of State's impatience to try to get the assessment times down to six months. Six months is an inordinate period for people who are in distressed family and domestic circumstances. The target time for clearing cases must be made shorter.
I come from an area where there are many self-employed people. Self-employed assessments are fiendishly complicated and time-consuming, and something must be done about that. People become incensed when they do not know what is happening, when they do not get the payments and when enforcement procedures are not complied with.
If the Government introduce changes, they may increase the complexity, and they will have to introduce those changes against the background of the existing programme for change. As is the case with other financial constraints, this Government have inherited that programme. There was a 15 per cent. reduction in resources for the CSA last year, there is a 15 per cent. reduction this year and there will be a 15 per cent. reduction in staff resources next year.
I agreed with the Secretary of State when she said that the staff who work for the CSA deserve Orders of the British Empire. I hope that they all get them in the post tomorrow because they do their best in impossible circumstances. I do not see how Ministers will square the circle of increasing complexity and the reductions required by the existing programme. Any changes will have to take those factors into account. We must go for simplicity and Ministers will have to be very careful about the conflicting interests involved.
Will the Minister undertake a piece of research? Previous and present Ministers have said--this is not new--that the old family court system had been discredited. A very good research study by Jonathan Bradshaw and Jane Millar was published at the back of the 1990 White Paper, "Children Come First". Bradshaw and Millar examined the levels of assessment being allotted by family courts and sheriff courts throughout the United Kingdom.
I should like the Secretary of State to look at that research and, perhaps, to carry out some more. Never mind the interim assessment, never mind the arrears--some of the arrears are horrendous--let us look at the weekly maintenance awards that are being made for the average case. If the value of the maintenance awards that were being made by the courts in 1988 is uprated to where we are today, there is not an awful lot of difference. If the Secretary of State can persuade me that I am wrong about that, I shall pay attention.
I was a solicitor before I was elected to the House. I did family law, and it was very difficult. What really failed was the enforcement mechanism. The Secretary of State can stay true to her clear principle, which she set out clearly this morning--that a continuing duty of maintenance is crucial--while the enforcement procedures are followed through more rigorously. If the Child Support Agency was focused on enforcement and there was some other mechanism for determining awards, we would have a fairer and better operated system.
I was reassured by the Secretary of State's undertaking that she will consider carefully a small maintenance disregard. She is right; the Labour party document was not wrong when it said that the increased income support that that might generate could pay for it. We should look at that as quickly and as urgently as we can.
I am also very worried about the benefit penalty, which was doubled in the previous Parliament. The benefit penalty for women on benefit who do not co-operate, particularly those on income support, is now nearly £20 a week, which is deducted from basic benefit for three years. Why are women on benefit refusing to co-operate? More important, what on earth is happening to the families--and the children in those families--who are suffering that deduction?
The Secretary of State is right to say that getting help to the poorest children is one of her objectives, but she must look at the penalty again as a matter of urgency, because it is unconscionable. We are all concerned about fraud, but somehow the two things became entwined, and people thought that a bit of fraud was going on and that there was collusion. Perhaps there is fraud, but bona fide mothers on income support are paying a very high price--a £20 per week deduction year on year. The Government must look at that.
The standard margin element of basic protected income was set at £30 in 1994. It should be uprated. That would not cost a lot of money. If it remains at £30 for ever, injustice will be put into the system. I would like it to be considered for annual uprating, or at least occasional uprating.
I was astonished at the complacency of the last Social Security Committee report, which said that the CSA's service had improved. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the Minister for Welfare Reform are not present. I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who said that it has not improved much at all. Some of the performance figures suggest that there are improvements, but I would like the customer satisfaction service to be increased. I would also like the customer satisfaction service to be extended to deal with second family disruption, because that is one of the major problems.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |