| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Incapacity Benefit
13. Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): If he will make a statement on the Department's progress towards reducing the number of people on incapacity benefit by 1 million by 2016. [83310]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mrs. Anne McGuire): We have already made significant progress. New claims are down by a third since 1997 and in the year to November 2005, the number of people on incapacity benefits was down by 61,000. We are building on that success through the national roll-out of pathways to work and the measures announced in our Welfare Reform Bill. That will make a significant contribution to making a reality of our aim to reduce, over a decade, the number of those claiming incapacity benefits by1 million.
Simon Hughes: I watched the exchange about the general picture between the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), and the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), who asked Question 1. May I ask the Minister a specifically London follow-up question? Just over 250,000 people in Greater London are claiming invalidity benefit or getting other disability benefit, which means that they are not working. Can the Minister tell me, either now or later, what proportion of them—excluding those who will have died or retired—will be in work by the target date of 2016?
Mrs. McGuire: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the earlier exchange between the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), and Members was far better live than it was on the monitor. As the hon. Gentleman has asked a specific and detailed question, it would be appropriate for me to give a written response at a future date, but he will doubtless be delighted to know that the number of incapacity benefit recipients in his constituency has already fallen by 5 per cent.
Mesothelioma
14. Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): If he will makea statement on compensation for people with mesothelioma. [83311]
The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim Murphy): We were disappointed by the House of Lords decision in respect of the Barker case. The Government announced that we will amend the Compensation Bill to restore the position and to offer some comfort to sufferers of mesothelioma.
Paul Rowen: I thank the Minister for that answer, and for the commitment that the Secretary of State gave earlier this year to taking such action. Does the Minister plan to extend the compensation, particularly to those people—mainly women—who come into contact with such fibres, perhaps through washing their husband’s clothes at home?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), raised this matter in an Adjournment debate a week or so ago, and I can confirm today what I confirmed in that debate. The industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme is under review and we will publish a discussion document later this year, on which all interested parties, including the hon. Gentleman, can comment. We are looking for additional ways to provide the support that people in this dreadful situation need in order to make their life with that terrible illness at least in some small way more acceptable.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Many of us are delighted that the Government are moving to overturn the decision in the Barker case, but do we not needa swift and simple compensation scheme—unlikethe miners’ compensation scheme, which is over-burdensome—for mesothelioma sufferers? Many such sufferers may have only 18 months from the moment when they know that they are ill with the disease to the moment when, sadly, they die. Will the Government move swiftly on this issue?
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in this subject and has done so for some time. He is right to say that the current situation is unacceptable. I understand that the average time taken to process and pay a claim is longer than the post-diagnosis life expectancy of mesothelioma sufferers, which is clearly unacceptable. The Government are working hard with the insurance industry, trade unions and others, and we will make a statement on this matter before the summer recess.
Child Support Agency
16. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): If he will make a statement on reform of the Child Support Agency. [83313]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): In February 2006, the agency published its operational improvement plan, which sets out how it will make significant improvement to performance over the next three years. In the meantime, Sir David Henshaw is developing a redesign of the child support system for the longer term and has been asked to deliver his findings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the summer recess.
Ben
Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any future child
maintenance system will have at its core an assumption that parents can
settle differences between themselves without the intervention of the
state, backed up, if necessary, with some form of mediation?
Mr. Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is right that all such problems arise because of relationship breakdown, and it would assist the families and children involved were such intervention avoided. Mediation has a role to play, and while I do not want to prejudge anything that the Henshaw report will bring forward, my hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point.
House of Commons Commission
The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission was asked—
Dining Rooms
21. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): What recent representations he has received about the use of House dining room facilities for party political fundraising. [83318]
Nick Harvey (representing the House of Commons Commission): No such representations have been received. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in written answers on 24 May and 14 June, regulations prohibit the use of House private dining rooms for party political fundraising.
John Mann: But will the hon. Gentleman carry out an investigation into the practice of constituency associations forming a club, which charges a large annual membership fee, part of the benefit of which is a complimentary dinner in the House of Commons? In so doing, will he publish the list of all Members who have booked private dining facilities in the House since the election?
Nick Harvey: This is not primarily a matter for the House of Commons Commission. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there has been misuse of any facility provided by the House, including its refreshment facilities, that is a potential breach of paragraph 14 of the code of conduct. Allegations of that nature should be drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will be considered in accordance with the procedures for investigating complaints, as agreed by the House.
Leader of the House
The Leader of the House was asked—
Official Report (Corrections)
22. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on how corrections sought by Ministers to matters recorded in the Official Report should be implemented. [83319]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw): The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. It is obviously helpful if any correction necessary to anything said on the Floor of the House is made clear, for example, through awritten ministerial statement. In the light of my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and his suggestions, I am currently considering the terms in which guidance should be given to Departments on how corrections might best be put on the record, taking into account how high profile the original error was. I am also in touch with the editor of the Official Report as to how corrections might be noted and cross-referenced in Hansard.
Andrew Selous: I hope that it is not old-fashioned to believe that being inaccurate at the Dispatch Box is one of the cardinal sins of British politics. If that is still the case, should not corrections be made at the Dispatch Box at the same time of day as the original error, in order to gain the same publicity as the original words received on “Today”, “Yesterday in Parliament” or anywhere else?
Mr. Straw: Were a deliberate error made at the Dispatch Box, having to come back to the House for a further oral statement would probably be the least of the retribution to be meted out to the individual. As for inadvertent errors, unless such an error was grossly negligent, it would be slightly over-the-top for the Minister concerned to have to come back to make a further oral statement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on his basic principle, that the way in which a correction is implemented should take account of the circumstances in which the original error was made. I also understand his concern about the use of letters from Ministers, which are then placed in the Library and cannot be properly cross-referenced.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Let me give an example. On 30 November 2005, the Prime Minister said that no one waited longer than six months for an NHS in-house operation. That was untrue, and it was repeated by other Ministers. How could it be corrected?
Mr. Straw: The first question to ask is whether it was untrue, or whether there was an argument about the statistical data.
Mr. Bone: There was no argument.
Mr. Straw: I have seen other data which suggest that what the Prime Minister said may well have been entirely accurate. Let me say, however—leaving aside that particular example—that if there is an inaccuracy, it is right for that inaccuracy to be brought properly to the attention of the House and the public. That is in the Government’s interests as well. The Government’s interests are not served by the appearance of inaccurate data in the Official Report, with corrections—sometimes quite significant corrections—available only in the House of Commons Library.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): I am grateful for the positive tone in which the Leader of the House is addressing an issue that vexes all Members on both sides of the House, but let me also give an example. On 19 April, during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that in the Thames Valley strategic health authority area—as it then was—there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks for out-patient appointments. In fact, that was not the case: a constituent of mine had been waiting18 weeks. I wrote to the Prime Minister; he did not reply to me. The Secretary of State for Health replied to me, saying that when the Prime Minister had said on19 April that “today” there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks, he had meant that on31 December 2005 there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks.
As of the end of March, there were more than 500 patients waiting more than 13 weeks for out-patient appointments in the Thames Valley area, so the figure would not even have been accurate on the basis of the most recent data relating to the date to which the Prime Minister referred.
Do not Ministers have a real responsibility to the House, and to the public who read reports of our proceedings, to ensure that the information given is accurate? Does not the biggest responsibility rest with the Prime Minister, who should be the one to ensure the highest standards of all in the information that he gives?
Mr. Straw: Having observed the care that the Prime Minister takes in preparing for Prime Minister’s questions, and the voluminous briefing that he receives and studies in every detail, I can say that he makes every effort to ensure that the replies he gives are accurate. As for the specific example given by the right hon. Lady, she will appreciate that I have not seen the details. It seems to me, however, that she accepts that there was a period when the waiting list fell to zero, and that the Prime Minister was therefore perfectly entitled to make the point.
We have to use the latest available data. I do not want to sound like “Eats, Shoots and Leaves”, but I have not seen from the record where the Prime Minister’s “breath mark”, or comma, occurs, denoting what “today” qualified. He was, however, using the most up-to-date data.
The right hon. Lady will have cause to know that I quite often quote data relating to the Thames Valley strategic health authority. I am open to correction, but I can tell her—much to her embarrassment, which is strange, because she should be celebrating the fact— that according to my recollection, the number of nurses in her SHA area has increased by over 3,000 since 1997, and the number of doctors by a significant number of hundreds.
Select Committee Reports
24. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): What assessment he has made of the merits of enabling more Select Committee reports to be debated on the Floor of the House; and if he will make a statement. [83321]
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Nigel Griffiths): There are merits in enabling as many reports as possible to be discussed here in the House of Commons, but the time pressures on parliamentary business do limit that. Fortunately, our increasing use of Westminster Hall during recent Sessions has enabled hon. Members to debate many Select Committee reports and to call Ministers to account.
Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for that response, but time pressures will always be with us. Some very important Select Committee reports are discussed in the House all the time, not least the Defence Committee’s fifth report following its Afghanistan inquiry. The Committee said, for example,
“We do not believe it will prove possible to complete the reform of the security and justice institutions in Helmand within the three-year commitment so far made.”
Given that that three-year commitment has been repeated time and again, does not the Deputy Leader of the House agree that the whole House needs an opportunity to discuss that report, Afghanistan and the UK commitment over a three-year period, or even beyond that?
Nigel
Griffiths: I understand that there are up to five days
when defence issues are due to be debated in this
House and that would clearly be a suitable topic during those debates.
Also, many statements are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Defence and other Ministers on defence issues, and I am
pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here today
to listen to the point made by the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Seeing as some of the most glaring examples of administrative incompetence by the Government, including the Home Office’s escapades and tax credits, have been drawn attention to by Select Committee reports, is not there a need to give those reports the best possible exposure and debate in the House, and to do so with a sense of urgency, which unfortunately the present Westminster Hall arrangements do not provide?
Nigel Griffiths: Fortunately, this House does provide them. It has provided an Opposition day next week for the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. I understand that the two topics for debate have not yet been chosen. Perhaps, since he feels strongly about it, he will prevail on his Whip and his party leader to include those reports, so that they can be discussed with the passion that he clearly feels about them.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |