| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Phil Hope (Corby): As a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the need for an urgent debate on the appalling performance of the Child Support Agency? The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reveals that 85 per cent. of outstanding balances were in error, and one in six of those were errors of more than £1,000. That has caused enormous misery and distress to families throughout the country. I believe that a debate on the Floor of the House would enable hon. Members who deal with these problems to contribute to the change process that is required. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the
agency cannot even find the right files to deal with cases, and said as much to the Public Accounts Committee this week?
Mrs. Taylor: As I said, I cannot promise a debate, but the information that my hon. Friend has conveyed to the House reinforces the concern that many hon. Members have expressed today. The figures are extremely alarming, and I am aware of the significant concern in the House about the matter. The Secretary of State for Social Security shares that concern, and I will ensure that she understands the strength of feeling that has been expressed today. I am sure that she will be reinforced in her determination to tackle this problem.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): If the conduct of the Minister for Public Health is irreproachable, why is the Leader of the House so reluctant to grant the House a debate on the important and topical issue of tobacco sponsorship? Such a debate would enable the Government to explain to millions of sports fans why their preferred sport is being treated so much less favourably than motor racing.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against any ban, whereas some of his hon. Friends were almost arguing for a total ban. There seems to be some inconsistency. I do not think that there is any need for an early debate on that topic.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention the "two minutes" campaign of the Royal British Legion, and ask her to consult the relevant authorities in the House on whether it would be possible for all Committees to observe two minutes' silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure which Committees will be sitting at that time next Tuesday. I shall make inquiries along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, because I know that all hon. Members consider it to be an important event and may wish to observe two minutes' silence in Committee, as they would if they were working in their offices.
Madam Speaker: The Leader of the House may like to know that I have asked all Departments of the House to observe two minutes' silence at that time. It is up to each individual, but I hope that it will be observed throughout the House, as it will in my Department.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): As a former member of the Greater London council, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she agrees with me that the electors of London are capable of differentiating between a Greater London authority and a mayor, and should be allowed to vote for one, but not necessarily for the other? While she is on her feet, will she confirm that current Members of Parliament who happen to be former leaders of the GLC will be allowed to stand for the position of mayor of London?
Mrs. Taylor: I would not dream of suggesting who might or might stand for that position, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the legislation and the result of the referendum are likely to be successful.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): Further to what was said by the hon. Member for Banbury
(Mr. Baldry), is the Leader of the House aware that the President of the Board of Trade has said that she wishes to oversee inward investment in Scotland? She currently does not have that power. Is it not strange that she should seek to take powers to the Department of Trade and Industry, while the Government are seeking to devolve those same powers to the new Scottish Parliament? May we have a debate on the subject?
Mrs. Taylor: As I said earlier, there is no conflict between the Ministers involved, because our overall objective must be to improve inward investment in Britain as a whole. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to explore those specific points when we debate the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring): Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect to see the Welsh and Scottish Bills? As has already been pointed out on a couple of occasions, there is confusion about why the Government should be seeking to devolve power on the one hand, and to recentralise decisions on inward investment on the other. Seeing the Bills would give us an early opportunity to discuss the ever-increasing turf war between Cabinet Ministers, and the ever-diminishing roles which are now humiliating the Secretary of State for Scotland and pushing the Secretary of State for Wales towards a very welcome resignation.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked when he would be able to see the Bills. He has seen the White Papers, as have the people of Scotland and Wales. That is why they supported our proposals. The Bills are not ready yet, but a great deal of work has been done. I am happy to report that there has been good progress on the legislation, and it will be produced in due course.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): As a number of Members experienced long delays before receiving answers to their letters to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers when the House was not sitting, will the Leader of the House invite the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House next week, explaining exactly when she and her ministerial colleagues were and were not in the Department during the summer recess?
Mrs. Taylor: I would not comment on the holidays that Conservative Members--or, indeed, hon. Members in any party--have had, but I know that Ministers worked extremely hard throughout the recess. That is why the Government are in such a strong position now. I shall not comment on the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, not least because it was raised with you on Tuesday, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): May we have an emergency debate on agriculture, so that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can come to the House and explain the outrageous remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he accused the farming community of being both lazy and cheats?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for MAFF questions, but I do not think that there are any outstanding problems. Certainly, emergency debates are not a matter for me.
Orders of the Day
Supreme Court (Offices) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.7 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short, and modest in its scope. Indeed, it might be characterised as a technical adjustment to the machinery of government. It does, however, concern an office of great importance. I believe that some reasonably detailed explanation of its background and effect will help the House to understand the need for the Bill itself, and for it to make rapid progress.
For technical reasons, the Bill's title refers to offices of the Supreme Court, but it concerns solely the Lord Chancellor's Department. Within living memory, that Department was a very small organisation staffed almost exclusively by lawyers, but it is now a major Department of State, with a wide range of responsibilities, including overall responsibility for the court system as a whole, as well as the legal aid system.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this stage, but he used the phrase "rapid progress" a moment ago. I wonder whether he will explain quite what lies behind that phrase. Does it mean that there will be any deviation from the normal process of scrutiny of legislation by the House, or will the process take place in the normal way?
Madam Speaker:
That seemed to me more like an intervention than a point of order, but perhaps the Minister will tell us the answer.
Mr. Hoon:
Obviously, procedure is a matter for the House to decide, but in due course I shall invite the House, if it considers it appropriate, to deal with all stages of the Bill. As I say, that is clearly a matter for the House. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I understand that it was announced in the House on Thursday that all stages would be taken today.
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
The Department's budget is more than £2 billion, and it has a staff of more than 11,000. Selection of the Department's permanent secretary, however, is still constrained by restrictions first imposed when the permanent secretary headed an organisation of five officials.
The present restrictions prevent anyone from being considered for appointment as permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is not either a barrister or solicitor of at least 10 years' standing, or a civil servant with at least five years' experience in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The purpose of the Bill is to remove those restrictions, so that future appointments may be made from the widest field of possible candidates.
The post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor dates back to 1885. Before that, the Lord Chancellor was assisted by a principal secretary who was an officer of the Supreme Court. The principal secretary's duties were political as well as legal, and he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor personally, and generally left office along with the Lord Chancellor.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |