House Of Commons
Monday 29 October 1990
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
London Local Authorities (No 2) Bill Lords
As amended, considered.
Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Port Of Tyne Bill Lords
As amended, considered.
Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—
Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Adelphi Estate Bill
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.
Private Bills Lords (Suspension)
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [17th October, 23rd October, 24th October and 25 October] as relates to the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords], the Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [Lords], the British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [Lords], the Llanelli Borough Council (Barry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords], the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords], the Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords], the North Yorkshire County Council Bill [Lords], and the Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords] be now considered
Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways end Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Oral Answers To Questions
Wales
Mid Glamorgan Health Services
1.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Mid Glamorgan area health authority to discuss health services provision in Mid Glamorgan.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met health authority chairmen on 10 July and more recently at a briefing seminar in Cardiff on 19 October. He intends to meet them again early in the new year.
I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. During the discussions, was the development of phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend discussed? In 1983, the Under-Secretary's predecessor promised me that phase 2 would be developed immediately on completion of phase 1. I do not want, as in the summit in Europe last weekend, a "No, no, no," from the Minister. I want a positive reply, because 250,000 of my constituents have been waiting more than seven years and trying to make do with half a hospital. Is not it about time that the Government fulfilled some of the promises made by Ministers?
I appreciate the strength of feeling of the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents on the issue. I also note how pleased they are with their new hospital. The issue of phase 2 is one for the hon. Gentleman's health authority, which has decided not to put it in its current 10-year programme.
Is the Secretary of State aware that rumours are circulating in south Wales that the guidelines issued by the various health authorities dictate that if patients over the age of 70 suffer heart attacks, they should receive less priority treatment than those who suffer similar problems under the age of 70?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should listen to such rumours.
Will the Under-Secretary reconsider his reply on phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital? While the health authority has to make decisions on its capital spending programme, the truth is that, despite the extra money being put into the health service in Wales, it has not kept pace with the inflation rate. As a result, the hospital, which was promised in 1983, has not yet been completed. The consultants at the hospital feel that they have been betrayed by the Welsh Office. Would not it be a sign of real faith in the health service for the Government to declare that the extra funding will be provided so that the health authority can go ahead with the hospital?
I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the extra funding, which has meant that real funding—after inflation—in the health service in Wales has risen by about 50 per cent. under the Government. I should have thought that the consultants and the others whom he mentioned would also be pleased with the treatment centre in the old hospital in Bridgend, and the amount that was spent on that.
Is the Minister aware that the waiting list in Mid Glamorgan has increased this year by 32 per cent., and that since 1979, Mid Glamorgan has lost 679 hospital beds, which must be lunacy? Does he acknowledge the concern felt by the Royal College of Nursing in Wales about underfunding and waiting lists, when all that nurses want is to be able to deliver their professional nursing care to more and more people? I warn the Minister that people in Wales are losing patience with his health service policies, which will lose the Minister his seat and his Government their power.
The hon. Gentleman must have a very cool mind, when one considers that under the previous Labour Government, there was only a 6 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated compared with 34 per cent. under the present Government—and that under Labour, out-patient treatment fell by 3 per cent. As to Mid Glamorgan's waiting list, in the 12 months to 31 March it reduced its urgent in-patient waiting list by 14 per cent.—the number of patients urgently awaiting treatment for one month or more—and its out-patient waiting list by 6·5 per cent., or 1,122. Mid Glamorgan also reduced the number of out-patients waiting three months or more.
Carers
2.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of carers in Wales to discuss matters of interest to carers.
I meet and have discussions with carers and their representatives throughout Wales frequently in the course of my ministerial duties—most recently last Friday, at the launch of the upper Afan valley elderly people's project.
Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by carers at the undermining of the principles of care in the community? Does he accept that they now receive inadequate support, and will he admit that his strategy for community care is to depend on carers without providing for them? Does he agree that it is inadequate to offer the answers that he has given about care in the community, and that there can be no confidence in a system whose finances are hidden within the revenue support system? There is now real fear of neglect in the community among carers and those for whom they care.
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has repeated the parrot cry that he does not trust local councils with the extra money that they are receiving through revenue support grant to provide community care. The hon. Gentleman should trust to the extra flexibility that local councils have to provide community care in the best way possible. The Government are absolutely committed to their community care proposals.
Who is providing the resources?
Resources are already being provided. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will also be aware of the increased support announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Livestock
3.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current state of the Welsh livestock industry.
I have had a number of discussions recently with the farming unions, and the Government have taken a number of positive steps to help the Welsh livestock sector.
Will the Minister confirm the figures used by the Farmers Union of Wales, which show that farming incomes in the hill areas have reduced by 37 per cent. in comparison with 1986 levels? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the Prime Minister has her way and brings about a further 30 per cent. cut in farm support, it will have a catastrophic effect on the employment, environment and culture of rural Wales? Will the Minister take it upon himself personally to intervene, to see that alternative measures are put in place to offset the worst effects on those who will be hardest hit?
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's own party supported the 30 per cent. reduction in farm support. If there has been a change in policy, the hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to make that clear. It is agreed that there should be such a cut, and discussions are continuing on how it should be implemented, on 1986 levels. As to the Welsh farming industry, I have constantly made it clear that a healthy agricultural sector is vital to the economic, environmental and social future of Wales. We have taken several steps, including advance payments on the sheep annual premium, the stickler cow premium, and beef intervention—the cost of which last week was running at about £6 million. The Government are doing what they can to assist in a very difficult situation.
My right hon. Friend will be aware, from his meetings with Pembrokeshire farmers, of the serious concern that is felt in the farming industry at present. Can he give the House an assurance that if the GATT negotiations are successful and there are phased reductions in subsidies during the next few year, they will be properly managed and incremental, and that alternative means of support will be given to farmers, especially in environmental improvement?
Of course, I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said. He is right to highlight the serious situation that would arise for Welsh agriculture if we were to enter a trade war and thus see many of our better export markets destroyed. That would be a catastrophe for Welsh farmers. Obviously, I am keeping closely in touch with those negotiations, which I hope will be successfully concluded. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that any changes must be gradual and incremental.
What representations did the Secretary of State make to Brussels, prior to the announcement at the weekend of a cut so that only one third of farmers in the less-favoured areas in Wales will be included? Indeed, two thirds of those recommended by the Welsh Office were excluded. Could he tell us what representations he made to avoid that?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had worked out what we felt to be a reasonable bid to the European Community. I have yet to receive formal notification of its decision, but I believe that the bid was realistic and achievable, and I hope that it will be successful. I urge the hon. Gentleman—unless the press report is incorrect—not to contact the French, in particular, to urge support for their attitude to agriculture, because I do not think that that is going down very well in Wales.
Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—that the livestock sector in Wales, in Scotland and in upland parts—[Interruption.]
Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the livestock sector in Wales, Scotland and other upland parts of the United Kingdom is an essential part of our strategic planning so that we can supply food and resources to meet these islands' requirements? Does he further agree that the problems lie within Europe, where people cannot reach a decision on matters that are fundamentally important?
I am glad that we get that level of support from my hon. Friend, who represents a Scottish constituency. It is vital that everybody throughout the Community realises how important a healthy agricultural livestock sector is for the future of Wales and Scotland.
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the small family farm is struggling desperately, that financial disaster stares it in the face, and that he cannot expect our people to suffer in silence when they are deeply in debt and cut to the bone? Is not it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has no coherent policy whatever? We want the right hon. Gentleman to use the full weight of his office. We are getting tired of a cosmetic and over-sanguine approach. There is a crisis and he must act now.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this subject, but I did not detect that he was putting forward an alternative policy. When he examines the issues, he will see that the important factor to bear in mind about Welsh agriculture is that we must continue to support family farms in Wales. We have very efficient farmers, and that is why we have so much to lose from a trade war. I was sad that he made no expression of his opinion on that important aspect.
Inward Investment
4.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the latest figures are for inward investment to Wales.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the inward investment figures continue to be good, and that in 1989–90 about 120 inward investment projects were secured—a substantial increase over the previous year—safeguarding about 6,000 jobs and creating about 6,500 new jobs.
Those are excellent figures and they clearly demonstrate that the Government's policy to rejuvenate the Welsh economy is making excel lent progress, but I fear that my right hon. Friend is telling the House only part of the story. Can he confirm that that trend is continuing in the current year and prove that the voices of gloom and doom have got it wrong?
I totally oppose the voices of gloom and doom in Wales. It has a great success story and we are proud of it. During the first six months of 1990 Wales attracted 61 inward investment projects, compared with 50 during the same period last year. All of Wales has benefited from 6,500 new and safeguarded jobs, compared with 5,944 last year. I praise all the component partners in that marvellous success story.
As by far the largest concentration of investment has come to my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan—although I refuse to take all the credit for that—what does the Secretary of State propose for training initiatives to stop the poaching of highly skilled labour in local labour markets?
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the praise—I detected it between the lines—that he bestowed on the Government for attracting such major inward investment to his constituency and for working closely with all the component parts of the partnership that we are proud to have in Wales. He is correct to highlight the importance of training, which is why we set so much store on the new training and enterprise councils. It is important to have a local training strategy that is shared locally, and especially one that is private sector led. That will be the success story of the TECs in Wales.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has had such good fortune. May I point out to the Secretary of State that, under his predecessor, Cynon Valley had the highest male unemployment rate in Wales; that under his predecessor's predecessor it also had the highest male unemployment rate; and it is still rising? What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have to reverse that trend and to attract inward investment into parts of Wales, such as Cynon Valley, which have suffered inordinately under the Government's policies?
Now that I have had the opportunity to visit all the 19 valleys—I know that there are some subsidiary valleys that might object to that designation—I am carefully considering how best to take forward the programme for the valleys. I am aware of the problems in Cynon Valley. I have visited it and met representatives of local authorities. As I have acknowledged on many occasions, there are still pockets of poverty that are providing difficult to eradicate and areas with high unemployment rates that must be brought down—and I know that, in that, I share the hon. Lady's resolve.
Does the Secretary of State accept that Members on the Plaid Cymru Benches do not echo the voices of gloom and doom about the prospects in Wales? However, to ensure that all of Wales benefits from inward investment and also to ensure that it is not confined only to the M4 corridor in the south and the A55 in the north, is not there a need to improve our north-south roads? Will he give an undertaking to review our roads programme with that in mind?
Certainly. We are determined to try to do our best to improve all the infrastructure in Wales. However, I wish to take issue with the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is difficult to say to inward investors that we are interested in them only if they come to a particular part of Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Provided that he joins us, which he does, in monitoring and propounding the success of the whole of Wales, there will be opportunities for all of Wales to share in the prosperity of inward investment.
Salmonella
5.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the report on the salmonella outbreak in Flint, Clwyd.
The report was published on 11 September. It made a number of recommendations on the handling of food poisoning outbreaks. These were incorporated in a Welsh Office circular sent to all district councils and health authorities, also on 11 September.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the main lesson to be learnt from the salmonella outbreak in Flint is the need for one person to be put in overall charge of the handling of such an outbreak? Why has he confirmed the current confusing position, under which the medically qualified officer is employed by the health authority, but responsible to the district council chief executive?
My hon. Friend makes a slight error. Our best advice was that the proper officer should be the district health authority's consultant in communicable diseases control. The environmental health officer could be named as the proper officer, but our best advice is that a medically qualified person should be the proper officer.
Waiting Lists
6.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he has undertaken of his Department's policies in respect to waiting lists in Wales; and what fresh initiatives he intends to take.
Since the launch of the waiting list initiative in 1986, over £5 million has been allocated separately to tackle problematic lists and, together with the further £1 million support for the three all-Wales treatment centres, that has resulted in the treatment of an extra 23,000 out-patients and 12,000 in-patients.
I am at present considering how to take forward those initiatives in the context of the new contracting process that will be introduced from 1 April 1991 when all health authorities will need to pay particular attention to waiting lists in the contracts that they negotiate with their providers.What is the Minister's response to the news that 3,000 additional hospital beds will close before next April to comply with the Government's finance first and patients last policies? Some of the beds are in Wales. Most of them, however, are in London, but they have been used over the years by Welsh patients as an escape route from the disgracefully high waiting lists in Wales. Does it mean that this winter will be the worst ever for waiting and suffering in Wales? Does the Minister have no response except to accelerate the conveyor belt surgery into overdrive?
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to day case treatment as conveyor belt surgery. I hope not. Last year I had a hernia operation and was in hospital for two nights. There is no reason why many cases could not be treated in a day. I should have thought that that was good medical practice. The hon. Gentleman must also know that the number of beds does not denote the number of patients treated. That has increased by 34 per cent. in Wales under this Government, and it has little to do with the number of beds provided.
Is not the Minister concerned about the state of hospital facilities in Gwent? For example, employees and constituents in Caldicot complain about the cut in facilities at Mount Pleasant hospital in Chepstow. There is also considerable criticism of the cuts in facilities on Ingram ward at St. Woolos hospital in Newport. What is the Minister doing about that, particularly as the local authority members of Gwent area health authority have been discarded in favour of local business men? Does not he agree that the local authority representatives would have been more sensitive to what is happening?
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on at least part of the answer: that this is a matter for the district health authority. I believe, however, that the new district health authority membership is much more suited to the new system for running the national health service. Decisions on value for money and outcomes, not necessarily local parochial pressures, will be the test of a good national health service.
Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists are in part a reflection of the success of the NHS? Patients are now queuing up for treatments that previously were not available. My hon. Friend has already said that there has been an increase in the number of patients treated, which is a far better sign of what is happening. Could not that number be further improved if only the best practice in treating day patients were applied universally?
Absolutely. That is the Audit Commission's view, too. It is also the opinion of most people in the medical profession. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in the number of treatments. That is why, for instance, Rhydlafar specialises in hip replacements, an operation which, not so many years ago, was looked on as being at the frontiers of medical science.
"Our Common Inheritance"
7.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with which organisations he has been in consultation, and what communications have been received by his Department following the publication of the White Paper "Our Common Inheritance".
Since the publication of the White Paper I have been in consultation with 22 separate organisations and my Department has received 13 communications. I am placing a list of those in the Library of the House.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept, following his consultation, that it is important for the Department to have a clear environmental strategy for Wales so that we can make our contribution to maintaining the environmental balance throughout the whole of the Principality? In particular, does not he realise how important it is to relate that to the strategic planning guidelines that his Department is developing, which would provide him with an opportunity to introduce the broader environmental strategy that Wales needs?
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that on the day of the publication of the White Paper in Wales I made it clear that I propose to ask for the issue of green belts to be considered by all those concerned. If necessary, I shall expound and expand on it at a special conference that I am calling of all those concerned. It is very much at the forefront of my mind. We certainly intend to set a good example in Wales, and we are well on the way to doing just that.
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a major omission in the White Paper about the problems of toxic waste in Wales? Does he accept, for instance, that the importation of toxic waste is particularly bad in the Principality, which has become the dumping ground for some of the world's deadliest poisons? Does he agree that the monitoring and licensing of toxic waste sites is a problem, and, in the light of that, is he prepared to comment on the incident yesterday in the Rhymney valley, where there was a serious explosion of cans and drums of chemical waste?
I have been contacted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and other hon. Members about the explosion. I am awaiting a full report. I understand that the health and safety inspectorate is investigating and that the local authority is carefully considering the position. Toxic waste generally is obviously an important matter, and it is dealt with fully in the White Paper.
Welsh Development Agency
8.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the future development of the board's activities.
I am meeting the board of the Welsh Development Agency on 17 December.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the next chief executive of the agency should be someone with solid experience in manufacturing industry, like the last one? Is he aware that there is considerable fear that the agency is turning itself into a property development agency, especially with the appointment of Mr. Malpas, who I believe is the property development director of Tesco? Every pithead bath now a Tesco? If we have a chief executive with the qualifications that I have suggested, that will go some way to allaying those fears.
The right hon. Gentleman should choose his words with greater care. The vast majority of people in Wales are proud of the success of the Welsh Development Agency. I was sad that David Waterstone decided to move on. It is paramount to have the best possible candidate as chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency. When I consider all the areas and activities of the WDA, I am constantly impressed by how it leads the field in so many different ways.
What progress has been made by the Welsh Development Agency in helping Delyn borough council find a new tenant for the Laura Ashley factory at Leeswood in my constituency, and what grants, if any, will be available to a potential tenant?
Following my hon. Friend's approach to the Welsh Office, I assured myself just before entering the Chamber that everyone was working as hard as possible to find an alternative tenant. Obviously, a range of financial assistance is available, which is an important part of any equation. As yet, I am unable to report any progress.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the future success of the Welsh Development Agency is partly dependent on there being a separate, independent and complementary body for rural Wales? Will he give an absolute undertaking that the Development Board for Rural Wales will continue, and will he consider extending its remit, as its chairman wishes, to include tourism and certain aspects of agriculture?
I regard the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales as absolutely vital. It forms an important part of my future strategy, and that of my ministerial colleagues, for Wales. It is important that all the different bodies work closely together. The DBRW needs to work closely with the Welsh tourist board. I know that Prys Edwards and Glyn Davies meet regularly to ensure that all the strategies are working together for the promotion of rural Wales.
Rail Service, North Wales
9.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on proposed changes to the rail service for north Wales next October.
I am aware of some marginal changes to services from May 1991. I understand that there may be further changes to north Wales services from next October, if replacement rolling stock for inter-city services becomes available. The north Wales coast line may again be closed on Saturday night for track maintenance purposes.
Is the Minister aware that British Rail proposes, after the class 47 locos are retired, to service the north Wales main line either by using sprinter units, ensuring that everyone has to change at Crewe, or by introducing HSTs, not on a service direct to Euston, but via Leicester and into St. Pancras, thus making the journey at least an hour longer for anyone travelling from, say, Llandudno junction to Euston? Does the Minister agree that either of those solutions is unacceptable to the people of north Wales?
I understand that British Rail hopes to get its class 158 high-speed diesels to replace some existing stock. I understand that the option of getting inter-city 125s to run through St. Pancras is being considered and that there are certain advantages to that proposal. British Rail believes that there is a good potential market for north Wales and Irish travellers in the east midlands. There will be the Luton connection with the Thameslink services and the south coast. The proximity of St. Pancras to King's Cross obviously enhances the prospect of joining up with the new terminal at King's Cross which will lead directly to the channel tunnel.
Is there any change in the balance of argument for and against electrification of the north Wales rail link to Ireland, given the evident inexorability of speeding up progress towards a single European market in 1992 and also—just to be safe—of European monetary union by 1994 or thereabouts?
My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for British Rail to bring forward any proposal to electrify the line. The Government are prepared to approve investment proposals by British Rail, provided they are worth while. The case for electrification of the north Wales line has not yet been made.
Financial Services Initiative
10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made on the financial services initiative; and if he will make a statement.
I am very happy to report that the financial services initiative is showing excellent progress, with employment up by 20 per cent. over the past three years. We look forward to further progress, particularly now that the area has been extended to cover mid-Glamorgan and the Swansea bay area.
I am glad to hear that answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the financial services initiative represents money well spent. Can he give the House an estimate of how many new jobs it has achieved and the total investment brought about by the initiative?
Some 70,000 people are now employed in financial services. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, just before I came into the Chamber, I heard the news that Europe's leading legal expenses insurance group, German-owned DAS, is to locate a new United Kingdom claims handling unit at Bedwas, near Newport. That is marvellous news. I am delighted that such an internationally prestigious company as DAS has decided to come to Wales. It confirms that Wales is becoming the favoured location for financial services.
Hopsital Closures, South Glamorgan
11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors he expects to take into account in deciding whether or not to approve the six hospital closures proposed by the South Glamorgan health authority.
My right hon. Friend will be principally concerned with the impact upon patients and staff, but will also have regard more generally to all the representations made to him.
How does the Minister intend to resolve the extraordinary position whereby South Glamorgan based its hospital closure proposals on the idea that it could close two hospitals, sell the land and build a new hospital with the receipts? Since then, the Welsh Office has changed the goalposts, sacked the referee and changed the shape of the ball as well. It no longer allows local health authorities to keep capital receipts for future hospital expansion. How does the Minister intend to get out of this conundrum? Will he now tell South Glamorgan health authority what to do with its hospital closure proposals?
The hon. Gentleman goes a little far and appears to misunderstand the right of health authorities to retain their funds from capital receipts. He may be muddling this matter with the proposed changes under the new system, which will come into operation, in a phased way, after April 1991.
Telephone Service
12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the telephone service in Wales with British Telecom.
I last met the general manager of British Telecom for Wales and the marches on Friday 19 October.
May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek a further meeting with British Telecom and to raise with the general manager the abuse of the telephone service by pornographic so-called chatlines? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable anxiety and distress that that is causing—particularly to families that are facing large telephone bills because of the use of these services, usually by young people? Will he take this matter up with British Telecom and get the practice stopped?
Although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and for the director general, I should like to express my serious concern about the abuse of the service. I very much hope that the code of practice will put an end to this appalling situation.
The Arts
Regional Opera
25.
To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the funding of regional opera.
I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter, including a most persuasive letter from my hon. Friend.
May I welcome my right hon., learned and—now it is official—cultured Friend to the Dispatch Box for the first time as Minister for the Arts and wish him every success? As he knows, there is grave concern about the funding and financial position of Opera North, which receives one third less from the Arts Council than the Welsh National Opera and a quarter less than the Scottish Opera, although all three companies have almost identical programme commitments and have achieved a high standard of performance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the principle that equality of performance and programme should be matched by equality of funding?
I thank my hon. Friend for his typically kind remarks. I am glad to be at the Dispatch Box in this capacity, but, like many hon. Members, I owe a great deal to the distinguished stewardship of the post by my predecessor, and I shall have a lot to live up to in following in his footsteps.
Opera North certainly has a commendable record of success. One of the major achievements in opera over the past 10 years has been the way in which Opera North has established itself and I warmly congratulate the company on playing to 87 per cent. capacity audiences at its Leeds base. The detail of funding is a matter for the Arts Council, but I am certainly familiar with the figures that my hon. Friend has cited and I know that he will be putting them to the Arts Council with vigour.I welcome the thanks that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed to his predecessor and I hope that he will do equally well for the arts. In considering national orchestras and opera houses that are located outside London, will he take into account the serious problems of underfunding that they will face with the present level of inflation?
I came to this job having been vice-chairman of the trustees of a major orchestra, so I am certainly well aware of the problems that arts organisations face. But never before have arts organisations enjoyed such buoyant revenues at the box office or such a good spread of funding, with such a substantial contribution coming from the private sector in addition to the continuing contribution that the Government are committed to making and the contributions from local authorities. I repeat that there is a better spread of funding than ever before, but I do not underestimate the problems that inflation is causing and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am discussing them seriously with representatives of those organisations and with the Arts Council.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest blessings that he has inherited from his predecessor is the long-term funding of the arts, which allows provincial opera and theatre to plan ahead? My right hon. and learned Friend would be well advised to continue that and foster it for the funding of the arts which is so important.
Three-year funding is an important development, because it allows people to know where they stand. It is also dependent on estimates of future changes which sometimes require fine tuning. I hope that we may see evidence of fine tuning shortly.
Theatres
26.
To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of deficits in national and regional theatres in England and Wales.
I understand that building-based drama companies funded by the Arts Council and the Welsh Arts Council have projected accumulated deficits at the end of the current financial year of £6·57 million. There are wide variations in the performance of individual companies, both national and regional, within this estimate.
The Minister could have been more honest. For example, he could have been specific and said that the Royal Shakespeare Company has a deficit of £3 million and has just turned off the lights at the Barbican for the winter. What kind of Government can allow that to happen to one of our most prestigious companies which has an international reputation?
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to bandy about questions of honesty. If he had asked a question designed to elicit that answer, he would have got it. Unfortunately, he asked a different question and he received the answer to it. He might like to bear it in mind that had we merely index linked the contribution to the Arts Council that was current when the last Government were in office, we would have been paying it £134 million, instead of which this year we are paying it £175 million, a significant proportion of which goes to the Royal Shakespeare Company. I am of course aware of the particular difficulties facing the RSC and of the particular courage and skill with which it is trying to overcome them. I regularly discuss those matters with Mr. Geoffrey Cass and the Arts Council.
Should not we build on our national strengths? As the Royal National theatre is a tremendous centre of excellence and a great national asset which draws hundreds of thousands of visitors to our shores annually, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider most carefully what can be done to uphold its remarkably high standards?
A great deal is being done to uphold its remarkable standards in the sense that the grant in aid for the Royal National theatre has increased above the rate of inflation and the theatre is one of those that are not significantly in deficit at the moment. I am also delighted that it has been possible for funds to be found from a variety of sources to allow the Royal National theatre to undertake one of the longest overseas tours ever made by a British theatrical company. Having been in Japan in the immediate aftermath of its visit, I know how impressed the Japanese were with its performances.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the predicament of the theatre, with 30 of the 32 clients of the Arts Council in serious deficit, is critical? The theatre is one of Britain's great successes for which the Government could claim some credit, but not if they do not recognise the need to inject a considerable amount of money and not stand behind the shield of the Arts Council. Does the Minister accept that, unless the Government act, the closure of the RSC's London venues will be inevitable, as Mr. Hands has said, and that would be a national shame and disaster?
As I have already said, substantial improvements in funds have been made available to the Arts Council and it has then made them available to a range of clients including many of the theatres that have been mentioned. I am also aware of the problems of deficits which I am discussing with various concerned parties. Obviously, a number of points about financial difficulties form part of the representations that I have made to the Treasury recently.
While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment, will he grasp an early opportunity to get around the provinces and visit some of the regional theatres where he will see the excellence of the works that are produced, particularly in the Mercury theatre in Colchester, and hear of their funding problems?
I am extremely keen to travel outside London, and, now that I have finished my labours on the Broadcasting Bill it will be easier for me to do so. Tomorrow, indeed, I have a full day in the west midlands, which will culminate in the inauguration of the Birmingham Royal Ballet at one of the leading theatres in Birmingham. I expect to spend at least one day a week out of London, doing exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has advised.
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment, and welcome him to his new responsibilities. The House knows that he has a genuine and deep love of classical music: indeed, he has the reputation of having the largest collection of compact discs in the whole of Putney. However, he must know that he will be judged not on the size of his CD collection, but on his ability to obtain money for the arts.
As several hon. Members have already said, the arts are facing a financial crisis. He knows that this week the Royal Shakespeare Company goes dark in London, and that the Theatre in Crisis campaign, launched today, identifies 30 of the 32 English repertory theatres as being in deficit. When we add the national theatres, the real deficit figure for the performing arts is £16 million. Will the Minister tell the House today whether he believes—as we do in the Labour party—that the arts should receive an increase this year above the rate of inflation? On that will depend whether his time at the Dispatch Box is happy or unhappy. One thing is certain: it will be a short time before the next general election and a Labour Government who do value the arts.rose——
Sell your CD collection.
Or perhaps my season ticket to Stamford Bridge.
No, no.
Before we get down to the nasty business, let me say politely to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that I wish him a very happy birthday. May he pass many happy birthdays sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
I have already made it clear that the Government have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the level of state funding. I have made to the Treasury the case for increases, with what effect will soon be revealed. It is also the case that a successful theatre, like any successful arts organisation, must look to others for assistance and must run its affairs properly. State funding is only one part of that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central would speak from the Dispatch Box with much more credibility on these points if he took the matter up with some of the Labour councils which, for purely political reasons, are cutting their grants to the arts. For instance, how can he justify the position at the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith, where £100,000 of grant is to be lopped off by a council which has increased its staff by 1,000 in the past four years and does not propose to make any of them redundant, preferring to sacrifice the arts instead?Civil Service
European Community
46.
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps his Department is taking to assist and encourage more Britons to take up positions within the institutions of the European Community.
Last month I launched the European fast-stream, a new recruitment and training scheme, to help British candidates prepare for the Community competitions. A new unit has been set up in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate our efforts to improve British representation in the European Community institutions, in conjunction with the European Commission, which has recognised that it shares the responsibility for tackling the problem.
May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new position as Minister for the civil service, and express the hope that—as he is an avid supporter of Chelsea football club—under his direction the civil service will behave considerably better than the Chelsea fans? Can he confirm that those Whitehall warriors who take part in the new European fast-stream scheme will be able to return to a career in the home civil service should they find the task of shooting EMUs not to their liking—or, indeed, the mission of teaching civility to Europe's most uncivil servant, Mr. Jacques Delors, an impossible one?
I am glad of my hon. Friend's commendation of our European fast-stream initiative, the aim of which is to allow people to start off as members of the British civil service so that they have certain guarantees of employment, which would otherwise be very difficult. I am delighted to say that of the 2,600 applicants for administrative appointments in the civil service, half have asked to be considered for the European fast-stream scheme and more than 500 have stated it as their first choice. I hope that, through the scheme, we shall make a large stride towards addressing the under-representation of Britain within institutions in the European Community.
Will the Minister check with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that children in schools throughout the United Kingdom have the opportunity to study the appropriate number of European Community languages so that they are able to take up positions in Europe with the European Commission? It is an important question, because, as the Minister knows, the Government clearly have no influence in Europe any more, and the best that we can do now is to try to influence the European Commission through the civil servants who work in it.
Although the hon. Gentleman has changed seats, his tone seems very much the same—alas. There has been an improvement in the teaching of Community languages in schools. I am glad to be able to say that, because—the hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is an important point. It is a traditional British failing—I certainly share it and perhaps the hon. Gentleman does as well—that there is an inability to speak a foreign language fluently. One of the things that we are making available to people who apply for our European fast-stream course is tuition in a foreign language. I hope that a number of them who get to the point of applying will already be expert as a result of what has happened at school and university.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage a larger number of secondments of quite senior civil service personnel to European Community institutions? In particular, will he ensure that a period of secondment is treated as a positive career asset upon possible return to the home civil service?
There is no doubt that a period of secondment to the European Community has been a great asset to my hon. Friend. Certainly we are alive to all the various ways of trying to ensure that our present under-representation ceases.
Agencies
47.
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress and future plans on the creation of agencies.
On Wednesday we intend to publish t he Government's response to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's recent supportive report on next steps. On the same day we will also be publishing the first annual review of next steps.
Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get the best out of the useful programme of reform, there should be a unit in the Minister's own Department to oversee the effectiveness of the way in which the programme is being carried on and that Select Committees of this House must exercise their responsibility to scrutinise committees? Will he see that the first step is taken? Does he agree that it would be difficult to take the second step while we have no Scottish Select Committee and no Select Committee overseeing the work of legal Departments?
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee makes clear, there is ample scope for a constructive analysis of what is happening. Indeed, there is a great deal of useful material in the report to which we can respond on Wednesday.
On scrutiny within my own Department, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the key elements of the next steps strategy—indeed, it is a fundamental base of it—is setting the agencies a set of tasks and rigorously monitoring whether those tasks have been achieved. Indeed, the performance-related pay of senior staff depends on it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of monitoring. It is of the essence that we not merely change certain of the frameworks of work activity but actually improve performance.Is not the next steps programme proving popular to the civil servants who work in it and also delivering better service to customers?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Conditions Of Service
50.
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service trade unions about conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.
From time to time I receive representations from the civil service trade unions on a wide range of issues.
When the Minister meets trade union representatives, will he tell them that he looks forward to the day when he will be able to negotiate civil servants' pay in a mark-dominated European currency?
That will not be part of my presentation.
My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that not very long ago an announcement was made in the House that the Ministry of Defence would transfer many of its jobs to the north-east of England and to Teesside. However, it was announced in the north-east last week that that project may well be knocked on the head as a result of representations that have been made by the trade unions of the civil servants who do not wish to move to the north-east of England. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity of saying that he will not allow such recalcitrance to stand in the way of a worthy project?
Like the whole House, I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall certainly pass his remarks on to the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for the move. It is not one of my responsibilities. However, I am proud of the fact that under this Government four out of five civil servants work outside Greater London. That is a significant and important development, to which we remain committed.
Special Advisers
52.
To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current number of special advisers in the civil service; and what was the figure 12 months ago.
Thirty-three currently; and 31 twelve months ago.
That is a significant increase in the number of special advisers. May I congratulate the Minister on his job and express the hope that, despite having two additional jobs, he will still find the time to kick up a bit of dust down at Stamford Bridge? Does he agree that it is now time to consider the issue of the politicisation of the civil service, given that there have been a number of senior appointments, not only in the special adviser area, but elsewhere, that suggest that we should either become honest and decide that we are going to operate a spoils system or the Government should pull up the stumps and stop appointing people who, under the Prime Minister's dictum, are clearly "one of them"?
Thirty-three out of 500,000 is not a substantial proportion. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about other political appointments and should be interested to know chapter and verse on that. As far as I am aware, appointment to senior ranks of the civil service is entirely on merit. The hon. Gentleman might need further to particularise the charge that he has made before any of us can evaluate it fully.
Oral Questions
3.32 pm
I have a short statement to make about oral questions next Session.
The House has now agreed to the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to oral questions and to certain changes in the relevant Standing Orders. The main effects of this decision will be that, as from the first day of the next Session, Wednesday 7 November, oral questions will have to he tabled in person by hon. Members, and only a limited number of oral questions tabled will be printed. The Table Office has prepared a short note explaining the exact effects of the changes, and this will be available to hon. Members in the Table Office and in the Whips' Offices. The Procedure Committee Report left one or two matters to my discretion, in particular the exact number of questions to be printed, and the timing of the shuffle. So far as numbers are concerned, I propose initially to authorise the numbers suggested in the report. Accordingly, for those Departments answering for the whole of Question Time, a maximum of 40 questions will be printed. For those Departments answering until 3.10 or 3.15, the maximum figure will be 30. For the Prime Minister the figure will be 10. Similarly, for the smaller Departments that answer for five or 10 minutes, the maximum will also be 10. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I will review those figures from time to time in the light of experience. The present deadline for oral questions to be included in the daily "shuffle" will be extended from 4 pm to 5 pm. Again, I will review this when the new system has been in operation for a period. I hope that any hon. Member who is still uncertain about how the new system will operate will not hesitate to consult the Table Office before I he House is prorogued, so that the new system can get off to a smooth start on 7 November.On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. I do not think that any points of order can arise from that—it is an Order of the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you please explain, the question of—[Interruption.]
Order. I call Mr. Cryer first.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that arises is about the number of Prime Minister's questions, which has been set at 10. What will happen if hon. Members pull out, as they frequently do, both in Prime Minister's Question Time and in other Question Times? Will the maximum number of questions take it into account that some hon. Members who are lucky enough to be in the first 10 may pull out before Prime Minister's Question Time starts? Will questions then include the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and so on, as for other Question Times, to replace the withdrawn questions?
rose——
Order. Allow me to answer one point at a time. If hon. Members table questions themselves—that will be the procedure in the future—I should be surprised if a large number of them who are in the first 10 do pull out.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, on behalf of the Procedure Committee, thank you for acting within two working days of the recommendation of the House to bring in something that will, first, benefit the real Members of Parliament——
Order. I think that that is a bit provocative. We are all real Members of Parliament!
Allow me to finish my question, Sir. It will benefit real Members who do not take part in the syndicalisation of questions, which is likely——
Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I hope that the hon. Member is coming to a conclusion.
It is likely to result in a saving to the Exchequer of something over £3 million. The House should be grateful.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned in your remarks that the limit on Prime Minister's questions would be 10. I suggest that you look at that afresh because you will find, on examination, that in the past two or three years, there have been at least three occasions when 10 was exceeded. There was one occasion when you personally called more than 14 because people were missing and so on. It is not a matter of hon. Members pulling the questions out if they are in the first 10. Towards the end of a Session when hon. Members are missing, as on two previous occasions, we could finish up running short.
rose——
Order. We do not really want further points of order on this. It is not for me to second-guess what the Select Committee has decided and recommended. I have already said to the whole House that I shall keep t he matter under review. If I think that the maximum numbers need to be increased, that will certainly be done. I shall take one more point of order.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly said that you will monitor the new arrangements. May I ask in particular that you pay attention to the geographical distance of some constituencies from the House? The extension from 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock will not make much difference to Members from the north of Scotland, the regions of England and Wales, who are not within easy communication distance of the House. Will you ensure that we are not in any way disadvantaged when tabling questions?
I cannot interfere with the shuffle. I hope that the hon. Lady is not asking me to do that.
Child Maintenance
3.37 pm
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for a new system for securing the maintenance of children, on which a White Paper entitled "Children Come First" is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
I should emphasise at the outset that, while it seemed appropriate for me as Social Security Secretary to make this statement, the purpose and context of these proposals extend well beyond my Department. The White Paper is presented jointly by myself, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also making a statement today in another place. Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare, of the children is the prime consideration. An effective system for securing their financial maintenance is an important element in achieving that objective. The present arrangements are, by common consent, deficient. As the various surveys and background papers published with this White Paper clearly show, they are fragmented, inconsistent, and too often subject to uncertainty and delay. They lack systematic provision for review and updating as circumstances change. Even where a maintenance obligation has been clearly established, it can be difficult to enforce and the caring parent may face great additional difficulties and pressures in protecting the children's rights. The result is that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers currently receive maintenance for their children regularly, and that some two thirds of lone parents and their children now depend wholly or partly on income support. Such a position is in the interests of neither the parents nor, above all, the children, and, of course, it places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes. The cost of income-related benefits for lone parents has risen, in real terms, from less than £1·5 billion in 1981–82 to more than £3 billion in 1988–89. As the House is aware, a number of steps have already been taken, either administratively or through legal changes such as those in the recent Social Security Act 1989 to make improvements within the present system. We shall press ahead with those, since it will clearly take time to undertake wider reform, but the Government have firmly concluded that such wider reform is now required, and the White Paper sets out our proposals. There are three major elements in those proposals. The first is a clear formula for the assessment of maintenance, which can be applied administratively rather than through the courts. The aim here is to establish a single system available to all, giving consistent and predicable decisions with a realistic relationship to the costs of providing for the care of a child, and the subject to regular reviews. The second is a purpose-built agency to undertake the assessment itself, and the work of collection and enforcement where necessary. The third is measures to enhance the payment of maintenance as a foundation on which lone parents can build greater independence for themselves and their children. I will deal briefly with each in turn. The assessment formula will itself consist of three main parts. The starting point will be the calculation of a maintenance bill, which the parents will be expected to pay if they can afford to do so. It will be based on the appropriate income support rates, including the caring parent's own personal allowance. That represents the costs of caring for the children, and will thus take account of the number and age of the children. Once the bill is calculated, the next step will be to assess the amount which the absent parent keeps from his net—I stress "net"—income for his own necessary expenses. That is described in the White Paper as "exempt income" and it will include his reasonable housing costs and the costs of any other children he is liable to support. There will, additionally, be a protected level of income, set by reference to the income support level, to avoid the situation in which the absent parent could be better off on benefit than in work. Thirdly, the amount expected to be paid in maintenance is then worked out on the basis of sharing the remaining income—what is left after allowing for the necessary expenses—equally with the children, up to the point at which the maintenance bill is met. Once that has occurred, contributions will continue, but taking a smaller share of any additional exempt income and thus, as would be expected in any family, the children will share in the standard of living of their parents. Where the caring parent has sufficient income, he or she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill. Absent parents on income support have the same basic resoponsibility towards their children as others, and we therefore think it right both to bring them within the system and, with appropriate exceptions, to expect from them a small maintenance contribution. The White Paper suggests 5 per cent. of the adult personal allowance, in line with the standard deductions made for other purposes. We hope to begin applying the formula within the current system from early in 1992. The second main element in our proposals is the establishment of a Child Support Agency. It will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require information and to determine the method of payment. It will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the Agency will operate as a "next steps" executive agency within my Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland. When the agency is fully operational, the courts will no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. Those matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. We hope that the agency will begin work in early 1993, though the number of cases potentially involved means that it will be some time before all existing cases can be taken on. Parents may choose to apply to the agency or make their own private arrangements, using if they wish the published formula. Where, however, the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children—that is to say, where the public can be seen to have an interest—she will be obliged to use the agency's services. Since it is no more acceptable for a caring parent simply to choose not to seek maintenance than for an absent parent simply to choose not to pay it, we think it right—again with appropriate exceptions—to make it possible for a deduction to be made from the adult personal allowance if he or she unreasonably refuses to help in pursuing it. The third element in our proposals, to which I also attach great importance, is one which builds on the advantages of regular payments of maintenance in making it easier for lone parents, as many wish to do, to move from reliance on income support into work and thus greater independence. To that end we propose, at the same time as the formula is introduced, to make two significant changes in benefit rules. One is to introduce into family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit a maintenance disregard of £15 a week, so that only above that level will maintenance have any effect on the help otherwise given by those benefits to parents who are working. The other will be to widen the scope of family credit for all parents, but in a way likely to be of particular importance to lone parents. We shall make it possible to claim this benefit when working only for 16 hours weekly, instead of the present 24. That should make it much easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for their children. A parallel change will be made in the income support rules, so that that can be claimed only when working less than 16 hours. In making those changes, we shall ensure full transitional protection for the small number of people who might otherwise be adversely affected. The choice of whether to work or not must of course be for the parent, but it is clear that many wish to do so, and where that is so it is right that we should seek to help, as these measures will. Our proposals for a formula and an agency, including the rights of appeal to whose precise form we are giving further consideration, will require legislation. That will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In the first two years, our proposals will give rise to some additional net expenditure, principally in establishing the agency and in making the benefit changes I have just described. From then onwards, however, we expect to see net savings, initially modest but building up in the longer term. More important, however, we shall have a system which better serves the parents and the children themselves. In conjunction with the Children Act 1989 and the wide-ranging review of the family justice system as a whole, which the Government have in hand it is an important further step in making sure that children do indeed come first.Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we strongly support the principle of the state assisting with the collection of child maintenance and agree that fathers should be expected to accept responsibility for their children? As the House knows, I issued a consultation paper last year, making that proposal a month before the Prime Minister's speech recommending it, which demonstrates that there is cross-party support in the House for this principle.
However, we have considerable reservations about the means by which the right hon. Gentleman intends to operate the agency. In particular, is it not clear from the way that the Government have drafted the scheme that the main intention is to save public expenditure rather than to remedy child poverty and enable lone parents to gain self-sufficiency? When there has been time for people clearly to read the paper, perhaps they will think that it should have been entitled not "Children Come First" but "The Treasury Comes First." For a mother on income support, where the right hon. Gentleman is proposing no disregard on maintenance—so the mother is permitted to keep none of the money collected without a corresponding reduction in her income support—it is clear that she gains nothing; only the Government gain, through a reduction in public expenditure. Will not the father feel intense resentment that none of his enforced maintenance will go to the child or to the mother, but only to the Department of Social Security? Is not the lack of a maintenance disregard when the mother stays at home with her child a basic flaw in the scheme, as without it, neither mother nor father will have an incentive to participate? Does not that reveal that the real purpose behind the scheme is to save Government expenditure? If the mother does seek a job, will the £15 maintenance disregard that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for family credit, really assist her in gaining her independence when she still has to meet far higher expenses in child care costs and, if she is an owner occupier, in mortgage interest payments? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given those large offsets, a mother would probably have to earn more than £150 a week—10 times as much—before she was better off than she would be on income support? Will a £15 maintenance disregard on family credit offer much of a pathway out of poverty? According to a recent CBI survey, 70 per cent. of lone parents want to work but cannot because there is no child care provision available. Is it not clear that, without those other elements, of a genuine family policy, which the Government have so far grossly neglected, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will do very little either to cure poverty or to help lone parents to regain their independence? As to the father—the absent parent is usually the father—will not the requirement for him to pay up to 50 per cent. of his income, after allowances for necessary personal expenses, simply transfer poverty from the first family to the second family if the father has other children in another relationship? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that surveys have shown that up to one third of men liable to pay child maintenance are either unemployed or on very low incomes, so that, even given a protected income for the second family at income support levels, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will simply leave both families on the poverty line? Does he not understand that, if he takes a punitive attitude to absent fathers and forces them to make unreasonable levels of payment, he will create hostility and antagonism and damage the relationship between the absent father and his child? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he wanted a scheme along the lines of the Australian and Wisconsin models, whereby the father would pay to support the child, and at much lower percentages of his income—but the Treasury insisted that the father should pay for the full maintenance costs of the mother as well, including her mortgage interest payments, up to the crippling rate of 50 per cent.? Does not that again expose the fact that it is a cost saving, not a poverty reducing, exercise? Is it not likely that a penal 50 per cent. repayment rate will have the perverse result of pushing more second families into dependence on benefit than it will rescue first families from it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also reconsider the element of compulsion in the scheme, which forces the mother to name the father on pain of otherwise losing up to 20 per cent. of benefit? Will the mother have an untramelled right——Some of the children are yours.
to refuse to name the father when she fears that he might be violent or where she may not be certain that she knows who is the father?—[Interruption.]
They might have illegitimate children.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. All these interruptions take time. We are in the middle of hearing a response to the Secretary of State's statement.
rose——
Do I understand that an allegation has been made against the hon. Gentleman?
A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I had sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.
I was not referring, Mr. Speaker, just to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), but was pointing out to Conservative Members that some of them may have fathered children that they do not know about—and might end up being named.
Order. That is an unworthy allegation for the hon. Lady to make. I ask her to withdraw it.
Withdraw.
The point that I am making is about all men.
The hon. Lady specifically mentioned Conservative Members, and it is that remark that I am asking her to withdraw.
It was clear that I was not speaking only——
Order. I thought that I heard the hon. Lady refer—in fact, I think that she did refer—to Conservative Members. I am asking her to withdraw not the generality of her remark but the allegation against Conservative Members.
I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that many men—including those on the Conservative Benches, and on these Benches, and outside——
Order. I ask the hon. Lady to do the right thing. She knows exactly what I am asking her to do, and I ask her please to do it now.
I am very sorry about this, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to challenge your authority, but I mean the point that I am making, which is not just about Conservative Members but includes them. I mean it, and I am very sorry, but I am not willing to withdraw it.
The hon. Lady is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and she must withdraw her allegation against Conservative Members. That is what she has said, and if she looks at the record in Hansard she will see that that is what she said. That is what I am asking her to withdraw, please.
This is not fair and not reasonable.
rose——
I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, when Conservative Members were heckling——
Order. Time is getting on. We have a very busy day ahead. The hon. Lady knows exactly what I am asking her to do, as does the whole House.
I have made no specific allegations, Mr. Speaker, against any right hon. or hon. Member.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes you have."] I am sorry, but I was making a point about the statement, and about forcing women to name the fathers of their children.
Order. I would be deeply reluctant to have to take further action in relation to the hon. Lady. I heard her say it and the House heard her make an allegation against hon. Gentlemen. That is what I am asking her to withdraw. Will she now withdraw that, so that we can get on?
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. No, I shall not deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am dealing with the hon. Lady.
I did not, and no one in the House heard me, make a specific allegation about any hon. Member. I am making a point that I mean, and it is important. I respect you greatly, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to be bullied on this matter. I have not broken the rules of the House. I have not made an allegation against any hon. Member, and I would not do so.
I think that we cannot continue like this. I heard the hon. Lady make that allegation—[Interruption.] I am dealing with it. All the hon. Lady needs to do is to get up and withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members in the House. I am not asking her to withdraw a reflection on men in general. That is a matter for her. Will she withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members?
I was making a comment about men in general and there are a lot of men in the House, and that is the only sense in which it is a reflection. I am not casting any aspersions on individual hon. Members. I am making a serious and important point about men in general. It just happens to be the case that a lot of hon. Members are men, that is all.
I have said that I do not think that that is good enough. The hon. Lady is a Front Bench spokeswoman. I am asking her to do the right and honourable thing, otherwise I much regret that I shall have to take action which I would deeply regret.
But it is not fair.
I am asking her to do it.
rose——
No, order. I am asking her to do it. She has already said that she has respect for the Chair, and I believe her. I am asking her to withdraw any reflection on any hon. Member.
rose——
No.
Order. I do not need any help. I am asking the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.
I am extremely sorry about this. One of the reasons I came into politics was that I did not like bullying. I am not casting any aspersions on any hon. Member, truly I am not. It seems to me that if you thought there was an aspersion it requires a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker, but I did not cast such an aspersion and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I mean the other point that I made, and it is very important.
Order. I shall ask for the extract of Hansardto be brought down to me so that I can check and see exactly what was said. If what I think the hon. Lady said is in Hansard I shall expect her to withdraw it. We must now get on.
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
I was talking about the important point of principle—the compulsion for a mother to name a father. I asked the Secretary of State whether the mother will have an untrammelled right to refuse to name the father, when she fears that he might be violent or when she is not certain who the father is. If not, how will the right hon. Gentleman avoid going down the road of compulsory blood testing, paternity suits and genetic fingerprinting? I strongly urge him to say, in general, what guarantee he can give that the power to withhold benefit will not be biased in favour of cost saving rather than protecting the basic right of the mother. We are also very concerned that the Government are removing the freedom to choose to stay at home with their children from lone parents on benefit, even if that is in their children's interests. Does the righ hon. Gentleman accept that the thrust of his proposals is to drive lone parents into work, whatever the needs of their children? Since the absent father will have to pay to maintain the mother if she does not work, he will no doubt pressurise her to work. She will be allowed to keep the £15 a week maintenance only if she claims benefits associated with low pay but not if she chooses to stay at home with her children. This is potentially a very important new scheme, but its proposed methods of operation are seriously flawed. It will be effective only if its structure is designed not primarily to save the Government money but as part of a wider family policy to remedy child poverty and help lone parents—both mothers and fathers—to gain security and freedom of choice.May I assure the House that I have no intention of taking the risk of making any general observation about women? [Interruption.]
Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. There are a considerable number of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill, and I know that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion on at least one very important amendment. The House will have to sit very late if we do not get on with the statement.
I welcome, in the spirit in which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered it, his general support for the principle of what the Government are seeking to do and the clear expression that he gave to it. I am sure that others will also welcome his general support. I welcome rather less some of the hon. Gentleman's other comments, not least because they went some way towards misrepresenting our proposals.
It is far-fetched to suggest that the only aim is to save money in circumstances in which the first result of the Government's proposals, including not least the benefit improvements to the in-work benefits, is to increase, riot reduce, expenditure. I reject also the suggestion that, where maintenance is paid, there is no gain to those on income support and that the only beneficiary is the taxpayer. Given that the taxpayer has been picking up a bill that was not properly the taxpayer's, simply because maintenance was not being paid, it is far form clear that it is either rational or logical to believe that the taxpayer should continue to pay that bill, even when maintenance is being propertly paid. Moreover, from the point of view of lone parents, especially those many who wish to work, the fact that maintenance is to be paid to the lone parent will put her in a substantially better position if and when she is able to take work. That is portable income which goes with her; it is hers by right when she moves off benefit. It provides a better platform for the transition. As for the £15 disregard, the hon. Gentleman has probably not yet had time to study the examples in the White Paper. However, he will see that that, especially when taken in conjunction with what we have done this very month to improve the housing benefit earnings disregard, significantly improves the return that many lone parents will get from working. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. We estimate that the combination of the proposals that I have included in the White Paper will enable between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents who currently do not feel that they are able to go out to work to do so. That is a gain, from everybody's point of view. One of the hon. Gentleman's last points was his allegation that, somehow, we are compelling lone caring parents to name the father. There is no question of compulsion. It is worth remembering that between 80 and 90 per cent. of never-married mothers readily assist in tracing and collecting maintenance from the father. We shall make the necessary exceptions for circumstances such as rape and incest. Before any action was taken under the proposal that I have announced, there would be a considerable amount of sympathetic investigation by trained officers to establish whether a lone parent had reasonable grounds. Where it was found that those grounds were not reasonable, there would be the usual right of appeal under the social security system. That is not a draconian step but a reasonable one in the circumstances of our policy as a whole. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had in some way been attracted by one or other of the ingredients of some of the foreign schemes that we have considered. He has misread the position. I was not particularly attracted by the Wisconsin scheme, to which he especially referred. That relates to the absent parent's gross income, which means that the percentage figures that are sometimes quoted represent a much higher figure than those that I have suggested. It makes no allowance for second families, and in many ways it does not seem to be a satisfactory model. On the point that we are somehow seeking to take half of an absent parent's income, I stress that we are talking about sharing the income that is left after taking the absent parent's net income—his income after tax and national insurance. We are allowing for reasonable housing costs and other obligations and then sharing the rest of the income with the children. The net result, in most cases, is nothing like 50 per cent. but much more like a quarter, and when compared with gross income it is more like 20 per cent. For people on reasonable earnings to be expected to contribute 20 per cent. of their income to the maintenance of their children is in no way unreasonable, and I believe that it will have widespread public support.Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will receive much welcome from my constituents, many of whom are lone mothers with children and who have been unable to get out of the housing and income cycle because of the absence of support from the father of their children? Will he consider the group of young males, many of whom are under the age of 18, who compete to father as many children as they can? Will he consider particularly carefully the incomes that they will provide? Will such payments be made through their parents until, once they are 18, they can pay for themselves?
There is no proposal in the White Paper, nor do I have such a proposal, seeking to take money from parents one generation upwards. The formula that we are proposing provides for, and takes account of, the circumstances when young men have acquired the responsibility that inescapably goes with fathering children. I think that my hon. Friend will find that clearly set out in the paper.
May I give a general welcome to the Secretary of State's statement? Why, as the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family, has it taken so long to bring forward these proposals, when over the past 11 years the idea that parents should support their children has, for a large group of the population, collapsed as a principle affecting their private conduct? Does he accept that many constituents will be pleased that there may be a saving in public expenditure? Some Labour Members do not wish low-wage earners to contribute to the Exchequer when people on higher incomes could but do not make maintenance payments for their children.
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that two areas will probably concern many families, particularly women? First, although it is logical to say, "The father should pay maintenance, so why should the mother keep any of it?", public policy does not often work satisfactorily if one allows only for logic. We must work with the grain of human nature, and surely an incentive might make a big difference. Secondly, while a few mothers may decide to be cussed and not name the father of their children, many other women, for good reasons, will not wish to give his name, and many of them will be frightened to do so. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this policy will be conducted sensibly enough to make sure that not only those who can without any worry to themselves disclose the name, do so, but those who would be frightened to do so do not have to pay the penalty of a cut in benefit if they refuse?I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has supported the generality of the proposals, just as he has consistently done over a long period.
I have already commented on the incentives issue. It is right to focus what we are doing principally on in-work benefits rather than out-of-work benefits, for reasons which are set out in the White Paper and which I explained. I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which the hon. Gentleman put his last point. I have made it clear that there will be provision for no deductions to be made in circumstances where it is judged reasonable that the caring parent should not wish to assist in pursuing maintenance. That must inescapably be a matter of judgment by trained officers on the basis of skilled interviewing. One of the advantages of setting up a purpose-built agency is that we are much more likely to have that kind of staff than we are under the present arrangements. The hon. Gentleman can have my personal assurance that it is not our intention to "pursue" people in this way—if we want to use that kind of language—where they have a good reasoon for not co-operating.Does my right hon. Friend agree that these welcome measures should encourage a greater sense of responsibility, so that more parents stand by their children in the first place? On a point of interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), will my right hon. Friend confirm that courts will have the power to use genetic tests in disputed cases?
I said in my statement that disputes about paternity will be matters for the courts. It is open to them to use precisely the same techniques and methods as they use now to establish the truth in a disputed paternity case. On my hon. Friend's wider point, I hope that these measures will have that effect, but they will have the advantage of making the situation that follows a breakdown or separation clearer and less of a lottery and hassle than it too often is at present. That will be a clear social gain for all involved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, from our point of view, it is right and just that a father who can pay but will not should be pursued? We understand that, if this policy is enforced inflexibly, it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Any divorce lawyer will tell the right hon. Gentleman that many divorced women happily forgo their right to alimony and maintenance on condition that the former husband forgoes the right of access to the child? Many estranged husbands deliberately use a weapon of torment against their former wives—access to the children of the marriage. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Child Support Agency will protect women whose husbands say to them, "I am paying for these brats and I will jolly well see them,"—usually at Christmas?
The two issues are clearly seen in the White Paper, and perhaps even more clearly seen in my mind, as entirely separate. To the extent that one is used as a lever in respect of the other, I am opposed to that. One advantage of our proposal is that it will make it much more difficult for people to use maintenance as a lever separately from access questions, which need to be separately resolved, because it will be much more difficult to avoid maintenance.
Is it not a scandal that only 23 per cent. of single-parent families are supported by the missing father? Is not the most important point that we have heard today the fact that this agency will pursue these fathers to contribute, which will be of value to particular families? Is it not important that these contributions will frequently go far beyond the benefit level that the mothers have been enjoying and, therefore, the narrow view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meecher) is not the key point to the mothers concerned?
There will certainly be some cases in which the effective establishment of maintenance will obviate the need for income support but, as I have already said, it is my guess that the greater effect—certainly in terms of numbers—will be to provide a firmer platform on the basis of which lone parents can move into work with confidence should they wish to do so. Whichever is the case, and whatever the precise numbers turn out to be—we are talking about behavioural effects, which are difficult to measure with precision—I am sure that the parents involved will gain.
May I press the Minister on the question of women and children who are attempting to escape from a physically violent relationship with the man in the family or from mental torture by him? The Secretary of State has not made it clear enough how women and children will be protected from harassment and danger. He ought to acknowledge to the House the fact that it is for the woman and children themselves to judge whether they need to be protected from the man. The new agency will claim the right to intervene in that very private relationship. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that women and children are not left open to more violence and harassment—the exact reasons why they got rid of the man in the first place?
Just as with the present system, cases in which violence occurs or is threatened in the way that the hon. Lady suggests will be a matter for agencies other than the Department of Social Security—most obviously, the police. The officers employed by the Child Support Agency will need to examine carefully all the circumstances, including any record of threats of the kind to which the hon. Lady has referred, in assessing whether or not the attitude of a lone parent is reasonable in a particular case. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, she will realise that there is no other way in which such a system could work.
On the continuing problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders, will the new Child Support Agency have the powers and trained staff to chase up delinquent fathers who persistently fail to pay maintenance? Can my right hon. Friend reassure mothers that there will be a higher level of payments than at present?
I can certainly give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks, and on every calculation and expectation that we have, the net result of the proposals will be to increase considerably the average maintenance payment and the number of those receiving maintenance.
The Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that maintenance payments involving children will no longer be the responsibility of the courts, given that the existing arrangements have caused great anxiety to mothers and have created great bitterness between mothers and fathers in relation not only to maintenance but to access.
It is clear that the distinction will be helpful and the Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the courts will no longer be responsible for the setting of maintenance orders in particular. But I am still worried about enforcement and, having had a brief look at the contents of the White Paper, I confess that I do not find the new proposals very imaginative. There is nothing new there. The agency will simply do the kind of work that the courts have unfortunately failed to do in the past. What new enforcement initiatives will there be to ensure more payments by fathers who at present absolve themselves of responsibility?What is new about the proposals is not the detail of the powers but the fact that, for the first time, instead of having a wide variety of agencies—notably the courts and the Department of Social Security—doing different things in different ways, we shall have a single agency dedicated to the purpose and with the staff to do the job.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great strengths of his proposals is that they will allow consistency of treatment as between families? Does he accept that one of the factors that ensures that people obey the law is that they know clearly where they stand, and that he should therefore take every step to publicise the proposals so that people know where they stand in relation to their children?
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give an example which is to be found in the White Paper or the supporting documents. In two cases that were apparently similar in terms of obligation and income, one father ended up paying £5 a week and another ended up paying £50 a week. That cannot be defended.
The Secretary of State will be aware that Hackney has one of the largest number of single-parent families in the country, more than 17,000. They, in common with millions of other women struggling to bring up children in poverty, will have been dismayed by the facetious way in which some Conservative Members treated this subject this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They would have expected the matter to have been treated more seriously by Conservative Members.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposal to dock women's benefit by 20 per cent. if they will not name the father will cause great fear to millions of woman? If a women's partner is violent or a drug abuser, she will feel that she must choose between her personal safety and losing a large slice of her tiny income. Is the Minister aware that many people outside this place believe that, if the Government were seriously interested in helping single parents to struggle out of poverty, they would address training, subsidised child care and above all, a proper level of child benefit?There are three points there. First, I must state that I detected no element of facetiousness in the responses from my hon. Friends or, indeed, in those made by Opposition Members during these exchanges.
Secondly, I have already said a fair amount about the 20 per cent. Millions of women cannot conceivably have anything to fear from the proposal, given that the great majority, as I have said, co-operate in any event with efforts to trace the father and collect maintenance. Finally, with regard to training, when the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to consider the White Paper, she will see that we want to do what we can to ensure that training services are properly geared to the needs of lone parents, especially those who wish to return to the labour market. However, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is much better that these matters should be taken out of the courts, where there is vast delay and a great deal of trauma involved? Does he also agree that it is highly acceptable that this is, as he said, a platform for working towards independence for women, but most of all it will enable children of the first family to share in the father's prosperity in a way that they cannot at the moment? That is good for them and it is not bad for the father.
I hope that it will not be taken as facetious if I thank my hon. Friend and state that I can hardly believe my good fortune in having her praise heaped upon me twice in a week.
May I ask the Secretary of State about a detail on the assessment of incomes? Is it not the case that the whole issue of housing costs is proving to be a quagmire for the Government because the phrase "reasonable housing costs" is used in the White Paper, yet in practice, the housing costs might be much higher? If housing costs constitute 30 per cent. of a low income, if that factor is not got right, the proposals might push families into greater poverty. What does the Minister assume to be "reasonable" housing costs?
They will all vary from case to case. The examples in the White Paper, which I hope are helpful in illustrating what is happening in the calculations, necessarily had to choose ballpark figures. The whole point of using terms like "reasonable" in that context is that there will be circumstances, for example mainly in the southern parts of the country, where "reasonable" housing costs are higher than in other parts of the country because of the general cost of housing. We shall try to take account of that. We do not want to have a position in which someone can deliberately house himself extravagantly as a means of avoiding a maintenance bill.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcements this afternoon are very welcome? However, will he reassure the House that in the new spirit of co-operation within the European Community, there will be an ability to track down European Community fathers resident in this country and also people from this country resident elsewhere in the Community, so that the agency can execute its plans?
I certainly hope that, in the area covered by the proposals that I have announced this afternoon—in which I think that we are ahead of most of our Community partners—we shall benefit from the general improvement in European co-operation.
I broadly welcome the proposals. Not only is it absolutely right that absent fathers should make a contribution to their children's welfare; it is imperative that lone parents should be able to work to achieve their independence. However, I hope that the £15 disregard is only the first step, bearing in mind the current cost of child care.
I should like to press the Secretary of State further on the question of women possibly being intimidated, so that they will not reveal the name of their child's father. Can he tell us what stringent steps may be considered to prevent a father from carrying out such intimidation? It is important both to protect the woman and child, and to ensure that an artificial threat of violence is not used to enable a father to keep quiet and not be brought to the enforcing agency's attention.On the latter question, the hon. Lady has given one good indication of why it would not be sensible for me to make the kind of sweeping statement for which I was asked earlier by certain hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. It could easily provide—quite apart from the mother—the absent father with an opportunity to evade maintenance. The essential answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has reminded me—is that any threat or actual intimidation is a criminal offence, and a matter for the police.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as a welcome for his approach to the matter, there should be a general welcome in the country for the tone and language that he has used? He is dealing with sensitive matters affecting families under great stress, who are sometimes in great poverty. Will he also pass on to his colleagues who have helped to create this approach, and to staff in the courts and the DSS, the gratitude of 650 Members of Parliament for the work they do every week in coping with the financial needs of people who are often in considerable difficulty?
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a point that perhaps I should have made—that, underlying these substantial proposals has been a huge effort not only by officials in my Department—although that has certainly been huge—hut by officials in a range of Departments across Whitehall. It has been a very effective collaborative effort, the results of which have, I believe, made it worth while.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks of this being a matter for the police, that some women experience enormous difficulty in obtaining injunctions and having them enforced? At the weekend, I was dealing with a lady in my constituency who has been repeatedly kicked about the head but cannot get her injunction enforced. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, if the majority of women co-operate in seeking maintenance, he insists on compulsion for the minority who may have good reason to resist?
I would almost turn round the hon. Lady's last point. The more that the great majority think it reasonable to co-operate—and, indeed, do co-operate—the less proper it is simply to allow others not to co-operate, without good reason. As for her earlier point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the problems of dealing with domestic violence are not exactly new, and certainly have not been precipitated by the White Paper. The Home Office issued a circular early in the year encouraging the police to take much more interest in such matters, because this is a long-running problem that needs firmer action.
My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the millions of caring parents who do take responsibility for their children, and who recognise that the hallmark of a responsible society is individual's taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Will my right hon. Friend consider a further suggestion, perhaps with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—the introduction of nursery vouchers for lone parents, who at present find that they are at a great disadvantage? They are having problems in getting their children educated before the age of five, and are thus handicapped in trying to find work.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note my hon. Friend's proposal. For my part, I believe that the right course is the one on which we have embarked—with better earnings disregards this month—which will be extended through the introduction of the maintenance disregard. That will improve the position of lone parents generally, and help them to meet work expenses—whether in the form of child-care costs or, for instance, travel costs.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, as his proposals are contained in a booklet called "Children Come First", the reservations that have been drawn to his attention, by hon. Ladies in particular, are because of our concern about children and the caring parent, who invariably is the mother? Therefore, will he explain why he regards it as a clear obligation on caring parents who are in receipt of family credit or income support to have to use the services of the proposed agency, as they are invariably the most vulnerable sections within our society? What steps will be taken to observe the total confidentiality of all such parents who are obliged to use the agency service? They are women who are subjected to domestic violence and to other threats. The confidentiality aspect must be dealt with in any legislation that is brought forward.