| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 889
Agreement. There has been much recognition in recent years that there is a legitimate interest from outside Northern Ireland in some of the affairs that affect nationalists in Northern Ireland. That recognition has grown and it derives from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Whether it does or does not, that recognition is a very good thing. It is something that has been reflected by all parties in the talks. I do not think that we should allow ourselves to be deflected from the really important business by a discussion of matters that took place a few years ago, let alone discussions of matters that took place perhaps 20, 30 or more years ago.Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My right hon. and learned Friend will know that many Conservative Members will be disappointed but not surprised at the failure of the talks. Few of us believed that they would succeed, but we wished them well. Whatever decisions are arrived at in the talks in the future--I welcome the fact that the parties are continuing to talk--at the end of the day, as long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to say that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, this House and this Parliament will determine what happens. We should never ever walk away from that. It is our responsibility--our duty-- somehow to find the answer to the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In fact, the rest of the United Kingdom will suffer as long as that deficit remains.
Sir Patrick Mayhew : I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course it is the responsibility of the House to govern the affairs of Northern Ireland as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That is expressly recognised in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : Most hon. Members will feel warmed when they hear from the Secretary of State that progress has been made, but people outside the House want to know what progress has been made. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State whether the intransigence of the Irish Government and the insurmountability of the Ango-Irish Agreement have prevented real progress in the talks to date.
Sir Patrick Mayhew : I have tried to make it clear, and I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see the areas in which I consider that there has been agreement. Perhaps rather more important is the opinion of the independent chairman that quite substantial agreement has been made--not enough, but quite a lot. I do not think that I will help the hon. Gentleman by going over it. I am not going to follow him into recriminations of one party or another in the talks ; that will not help us. I believe that we should be getting on, and I hope that he believes that we should be getting on. I do not think that we shall get on if we start pointing the finger at one participant or another.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Does the Secretary of State accept that there are great opportunities at this time for all those who live on the island of Ireland with the Single European Act coming into force on 1 January, the prospects of enhanced trade and the prospects of enhanced employment?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the consensus in the House that the British-Irish
Column 890
inter-parliamentary body represents a forum of dialogue, co-operation and consultation that helps to unite people north and south, east and west, of these islands? May I make an appeal to Unionist Members? There are seats available for them. They would take their seats with a great welcome from the House because it would be fully in line with the traditions of democracy and freedom in Northern Ireland and the consultation and co-operation that they are seeking with the Parliament of the Republic and the Parliament of Westminster.Sir Patrick Mayhew : I very much agree with the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Single European Act. That Act opens up prospects for much greater trade, north-south ; it is surprising how little there has been until very recently. Trade and a strong economy lead to the kind of stability which is the best insurance against toleration for terrorism. That is the relevance of what has been said, just as the business that we have been engaged in over the last six months is relevant to the defeat of terrorism, which is the Government's overriding objective. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) : The only agreement that appears to have been reached throughout the talks is the unanimity of view that the talks were chaired well by officials or politicians. Moving to the substance of the Secretary of State's report to the House, first, will he confirm that any overall agreement can be attained only with the consent of the Government in Dublin? Secondly, he said that he would not like to see published a blow-by-blow account of the talks. I agree, because it would make public the divisions which clearly exist. But the Secretary of State says in his statement that the participants
"have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement".
If that is so, does not he agree that those elements should be made public so that there could be a wider public discussion of them? That would not itself prejudice any future talks between the internal parties in Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew : The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members seem to recognise only one area of agreement--that the process was chaired well. I am happy to accept that. We have to begin somewhere. He asked whether we should publish the areas where we say that there has been discussion of the basic elements. The point is that everybody agreed at the beginning that nothing should be agreed until all was agreed. It may be that people at the preliminary stage said, "We could agree with this or that, provided the other." I do not think that that process would be brought to crystallisation and agreement if there were to be publication now of what has taken place. I know that it is disappointing for those who take great interest in these matters, but that I believe to be the view of all who participated in the talks.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : Does the Secretary of State agree that it was the existence and the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which were the conduit which brought the otherwise distant parties together around the table? Does he further agree that the talks would be continuing to this very day if certain parties, for very good
Column 891
reasons of their own, had not withdrawn from the process? We could have been talking next week if that had not happened.I share the Secretary of State's optimism and confidence for the future. I should like to think that, notwithstanding what I hope will be a short recess, the mechanisms of getting together would be facilitated by him and by the parties in order to bring all three strands, which are so intertwined, to a successful conclusion.
Sir Patrick Mayhew : I am very anxious, as I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, to do anything I can to get this thing going and moving in the right direction. Nobody is less inclined to stand upon formality than me, so he has that assurance.
I will not take up what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. I was described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) as an umpire. I do not think I am an umpire, but certainly an umpire does not get drawn into supporting one side or the other in a conflict, and I do not propose to do so.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is it not a fact that the Anglo -Irish Agreement was approved in the House by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides? The Unionist parties, of course, recognise the sovereignty of Parliament as regards Northern Ireland. As to the parliamentary body, there has been a remarkable breakthrough in that British and Irish parliamentarians have sat down together in the full body and in sub-committees over the past two years.
In view of the interest of a number of European countries, and now the United States, in the talks or in what may take place in Northern Ireland in future, is the Secretary of State willing, on behalf of the Government, for those Governments which are so interested, including the new Administration in the United States, to come to Northern Ireland so that they may see for themselves that we have absolutely nothing to hide?
Sir Patrick Mayhew : I agree warmly with the hon. Gentleman. I encourage visits from all over the world, and when visitors come there is an almost uniform result. They say, "We had no idea that the media image was so wide of the mark." The Southern Legislative Conference of American States--senators and congressmen from the southern states--is the most recent example. They spent the thick end of a week in Northern Ireland, and at the end of their stay they said, "We are going back to America to do our best to correct the image, which we regard as unrecognisable." That is so. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to go to Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter and with whatever prejudice, is welcome. I shall see to it that they have a fair view of Northern Ireland, and that they are free to go wherever they like and to talk to whoever they like, and they will come away wiser and, I trust, happier people.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Were the talks exclusively concerned with constitutional, political and security matters or were economic and social affairs discussed, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seemed to suggest? One way to tackle the situation in Northern Ireland and to undermine sectarianism is to make progress in dealing with the unemployment, deprivation and poverty which exist there and throughout the island of Ireland.
Column 892
Sir Patrick Mayhew : I assure the hon. Gentleman that they were included. During those six months there were times when I thought that nothing under the sun was excluded. The extremely important matters that he mentioned were certainly included, for the reason that he identified. Economic strength and the elimination of deprivation and disadvantage, wherever they may be found, are important in their own right, and to inculcate stability. That is why the British Government are so anxious to target areas of social need--as we do--and to target areas such as Belfast and Londonderry, where financial help can get businesses and employment going. That is why the MacBride principles, which are espoused in certain areas of the United States, are so deeply damaging because they are destructive of jobs, and that is why they are opposed by every constitutional party in Northern Ireland and supported only by Sinn Fein.
Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : I am sure that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would agree with what the Secretary of State said about looking to the future and not to the past and not recriminating about what has gone on. Does he agree that in the foreseeable future Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom and that during that time the people there should be treated in the same way as the rest of the citizens in the kingdom? Why does he not agree to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland immediately?
Sir Patrick Mayhew : The hon. Lady is right to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future-- as long as the majority of people living there wish to do so. If they change their minds, it will cease to be a part of the United Kingdom. That has been made perfectly clear for many years. The hon. Lady asks about a Select Committee. I remind her that, in their response to the report of the Procedure Committee, the Government said that they had no objection to such a Select Committee--provided that setting it up met with the approval of the House--but that it would have to have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is it not rather strange that along comes the ex-Attorney General, Mr. Smoothie, who could have said all he needed to say in a few sentences? The Government's policies have failed. They have gone down the pan, but he is trying to kid us along that somehow everything remains the same. The truth is that we need a new political initiative in Ireland, and that is to get the troops out. I intervened when the Secretary of State talked about convergence because he could not get convergence between two nation states. What chance has he got in Maastricht with 12 nation states?
Sir Patrick Mayhew : The hon. Gentleman has lost his form since I used to see him off over Attorney-General's questions ; he is out of practice. The British Government do not adopt what he calls the "troops out" policy because we have more concern for the real interests of ordinary people in Northern Ireland than he could ever begin to understand.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : It may be of little moment, but some hon. Members believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should have been entitled the British-Irish Agreement.
Column 893
Although it is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government hold to the view that there can be no agreement other than a comprehensive agreement by all the parties and that therefore the Government will never seek to impose a change on Northern Ireland, will he assure me that that message will be conveyed to Washington? Will he further assure me that President-elect Clinton will be most carefully apprised of the current circumstances surrounding those talks? Surely the days of the American interventionist role in Europe are coming to an end.Sir Patrick Mayhew : I have been rather grateful, as have most people in this country, for the concern which the Americans have shown in the past 45 years for our affairs here in Europe. However, we must distinguish between what is said in the heat of a hotly contested election campaign and what is likely to be the considered policy of a great ally of this country and a great nation. As I have said, the more people come to see what Northern Ireland is really like, the better. But it is important that they should realise that we need not so much a peace envoy as agreement in the process of constitutional talks now engaging us, which the whole House supports.
Column 894
Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assume that you will shortly be holding a ballot for notices of motions for 27 November. I know that you are busy and must give a tremendous amount of thought to all the processes in the House. May I remind you, however, that last Wednesday you announced the names of those who were successful in the ballot for Friday 20 November. Last Wednesday we debated further the European Communities Bill. I expect that most hon. Members will remember that day. My name appeared in column 280 of the Official Report of 4 November as the first to be selected in the ballot for 20 November. In recent months, some Opposition Members have accused me of ballot rigging. I should not like anyone to suggest or imply that I have been responsible for rigging this ballot in any way.
In the blue pages of the Order Paper for 4 November, page 1179 reads :
"Mr. Ray Powell To call attention to a subject and to move a resolution".
On 5 November, I received a letter from the Table Office informing me that I had been drawn first in the ballot of 4 November for Private Members' Notices of Motions and that, to have priority under Standing Order No. 13, I was requested to give notice of the subject before the rising of the House on Wednesday 11 November--today. Yesterday afternoon, I took the opportunity to give notice of the subject that I intend to move on 20 November. The subject was "the fear, plight and poverty of pensioners".
When I put that to the Table Office, there was no suggestion that there had been any change or mistake about who had come first in the ballot for 20 November. Then, at near to midnight when I was in my room, the Clerk from the Table Office called to inform me that I did not have the number one spot for notice of motions for Friday 20 November, but that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell) did.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is that six clear days elapsed between when I was informed of the change and when you announced from the Chair, and all Opposition Members believed, that I was first in the ballot for 20 November. I had been assured that the maximum publicity would centre on the important subject that I had chosen, especially this year. The local and national--
Madam Speaker : Order. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Powell : But it is for you, Madam Speaker, to rule on the matter. There is no one else whom I can approach, My office has sent out publicity to pensioners' organisations throughout the country highlighting the problems and difficulties for pensioners, particularly now just before the onset of winter. Many pensioners are worried and fear that they will not be able to pay their bills, and are concerned about what will happen if they become homeless. As a result of the strong-arm tactics of the Whips Office last week that we read about--
Madam Speaker : Order. I want to hear no more about the Whips Office from a man who was himself a Whip. I can rule on the matter as the hon. Gentleman is now addressing the subject rather than speaking about technical matters.
Column 895
Mr. Powell : I was informed of the change last night, and protested that six days had elapsed. Madam Speaker, you know that we have only one or two days in which to notify the Official Report when we want anything altered. Its staff tell us that they will not alter any part of the report after two or three days. Why does the Table Office have a licence to alter the decision recorded in Hansard when preparations have already been made for my debate on 20 November? Why does the Table Office have the right to make alterations when hon. Members do not have a similar right? I want you, Madam Speaker, to rule that the announcement that you made a week ago today still stands and I can go ahead with my debate on 20 November.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. I doubt that I need any further points of order after such a long explanation from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
I remember the day very well. The House was excited about a forthcoming debate. There is no question but that the successful candidate in the ballot was Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell. The mistake has been made, which is to be greatly regretted. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ogmore, who has done much to inform his constituents about the subject that he wished to raise only to find that it is not to be debated, which is also to be regretted. There is no doubt that Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell, was successful in the ballot. If the hon. Member for Ogmore looks at the Ballot Book, he will see that the number drawn out was clearly that of Mr. Ralph Howell. A mistake was subsequently made, for which there has been an apology. I do not know how lucky the hon. Gentleman is in ballots--I have never been successful--but if he waits a while he can see whether he is successful today.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Order. There can be nothing further to be said on that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether your in-tray has, like mine, been burdened with a glossy piece of paper known as a baby Maastricht. The Foreign Office has called the document "Britain in Europe--the European Community and Your Future". If you have yet to receive a copy, you will be pleased to know that you can get one free through Freepost. However, if you were to scan its pages, I believe that you would be less than pleased as it is not objective, but blatant propaganda. I shall not weary the House with several examples of propaganda ; I will give just one. It states :
"Aren't we on a slippery slope to federalism?"
Column 896
The Government say, "No", but we know that Martin Bangemann says, "Yes"--Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : And he was speaking the truth.
Mr. Marlow : As the hon. Gentleman says--
Madam Speaker : Order. The point of order must be directed to me. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has raised points of order hundreds of times and knows the procedure.
Mr. Marlow : I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Although I have been a Member for a long time, I am distracted from time to time, for which I apologise.
The leaflet is propaganda. I have obtained from the Library the background on the Governments information service which sets out the rules under which they must operate. It states that some conventions have been established and
"Government publicity should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical"--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the time of the House. I am patient when listening to points of order, but the hon. Gentleman has not yet come to his. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case with me, but he is not in a position to do that. If he has a point of order for me, he must come directly to it or I shall ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Marlow : Madam Speaker, have you been asked by the Foreign Secretary whether he can give a statement on why the guidelines have been abused and why taxpayers' money is being provided to produce propaganda for circulation to taxpayers? If the Foreign Secretary has not requested a statement, what action is available to the House to stop the abuse?
Madam Speaker : The latter question must be put to the Foreign Secretary, not the Chair. The answer to the earlier question is no--the Foreign Secretary has not informed me of a statement. No Minister asks me about a statement ; I am informed when a statement is to be made. I have not been so informed.
We shall now move on to the ballot for notices of motions to see whether the hon. Member for Ogmore can be lucky this time.
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER 1992 Members successful in the ballot were :
Mr. Tam Dalyell
Mr. Roger Knapman
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Column 897
General Election Expenses Reform
4.46 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency ; and for connected purposes.
Many hon. Members have travelled worldwide to observe the electoral processes of many of the newly democratised countries. We have rarely found anything to complain about in their newly minted democratic systems. But I wonder what the verdict of observers from Romania, Estonia and Hungary might be on our electoral system, had they been here in April. I believe that they would have said that the system was basically sound, but long overdue for care and maintenance, especially in its weakest sector--its failure to control national spending.
We have just witnessed in the United States the power that money deployed in prodigious quantities can have to persuade one voter in five to vote for a previously little known candidate. In Britain we are in an extremely foolish position. For more than 100 years we have rigidly controlled local spending by individual candidates. That reform was introduced to end the practice then known as bribing and treating, which dishonoured the electoral process in the last century. Since 1974 an aberration in the law has allowed parties to spend unlimited sums of money on so-called national spending, which means that spending is allowed on publicity which mentions the party's name, but not the candidate's name.
Not surprisingly, since that time national spending has increased and local spending has decreased. At the last two elections, for every £1 spent locally £8 was spent nationally. The law frets and worries about the minnows while the great fat salmon sail by unhindered. The most authoritative calculation that I can find on the comparative spending of the three main parties in the last two general elections is that for every £1 spent by the Liberal Democrats, Labour spent £4 and the Conservative party spent £9--more that all other parties combined.
At an election the incumbent party already has enormous advantages. Earlier, there was a point of order about the possible use of Government money for propaganda. A great avalanche of Government so-called advertising precedes a general election. The Government have an obedient press and control of their own advertising in a friendly poster industry. The advantage of the richest party is magnified to an even greater extent because the so-called national advertising is concentrated in the 100-plus key marginal constituencies which determine the election result.
I have searched for some scientific analysis of how persuasive were the "double whammy" and "tax bombshell" posters in April. There is none, but subjective evidence shows that that message was repeated on many billboards and, although it was dishonest, it had an enormous effect in influencing people's voting choice. However, there is an even greater threat to the integrity of our system--the way in which the poster sites were distributed. Three huge blocks of valuable poster sites were booked in the name of commercial companies before the date of the general election was announced, and many of them were booked without the knowledge or consent of those companies.
Column 898
The most significant feature was that 2,000 poster sites were booked in the name of the Imperial Tobacco Company which immediately handed over those sites to be used by the Conservative party. In a frank statement, Mr. Peter Middleton, the marketing manager of that company said that as Labour and the Liberal democrats had said that they would support a ban on tobacco advertising, the company would like to see the Conservatives re-elected because it believed that they would continue to oppose the advertising ban.The refusal to support a ban on advertising is one of the promises that the Government have honoured, and they continue--quite disgracefully and against all the evidence and public opinion--to oppose such a ban. The greatest threat is that there is nothing to prevent an individual, a company or even a country with enormous amounts of money, however malign their intentions or anti-social their views, to enter the British electoral system and spend millions--there is no limit whatever--to persuade voters. Our system, if it is not yet corrupted, is wide open and inviting corruption to come in. Vote buying is returning to British elections.
The remedy that the Bill provides is the establishment of a national registration system for political parties. So out of touch is the law that at present it does not even recognise the existence of political parties. The Bill seeks an electoral commission to oversee all national expenditure limits. Each party would appoint a national agent to be legally responsible for ensuring that limits are not exceeded. Those controls would be based on the number of candidates fielded by each party. The Bill's general sentiments have been publicly supported over and over again by all main British parties except one--the party which gains most from the present system.
Last week in my constituency, we commemorated the 153rd anniversary of the martyrdom of 20 Chartists who died when they demonstrated outside the Westgate hotel. That commemoration of those brave men and women who gave their lives for what they said was a noble cause is held every year. They died in the cause of protecting and strengthening the dishonoured democracy of their day. Democracy is a fragile organism and it needs the constant care and renewal that the Bill will provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mr. Flynn : Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, shades of the Newport Chartists, John Frost, Henry Vincent, George Shell and Zephaniah Williams--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must start again, giving the names of hon. Members who will bring in the Bill. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.
General Election Expenses Reform
Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency ; and for connected purposes : And the
Column 899
same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 81].Column 900
Orders of the Day
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords] Order for Second Reading read.
4.56 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time The Bill is a modest and technical measure and, if I may presume to say so, it is narrow. It will amend the court procedures for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders by magistrates courts. It will enable orders for maintenance to be enforced where one party is resident in the United Kingdom and the other party is resident in a country with which the United Kingdom has a reciprocal agreement. Until this amendment is made, a number of people will be unable to obtain the maintenance for themselves and their children to which they are entitled.
The Bill consists of four clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 will bring into effect the substantive amendments contained in schedule 1. Clause 2 will bring into effect the consequential amendments to other legislation set out in schedule 2. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for commencement and the short title of the Bill respectively. Schedule 1 contains the substantive changes to be brought into effect by the Bill. Part I amends the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and part II amends the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. Schedule 3 is a schedule of consequential repeals. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Will the Minister explain how that rather sorry state of affairs came about?
Mr. Taylor : Certainly. That state of affairs, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, was debated in the other place. As the House wants a candid answer, I must say that it was an oversight made in good faith.
4.59 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : We are grateful to the Minister for his candour. What occurred was a legislative cock-up of the most monumental proportions. [Interruption.] I see one of the silent ones telling me to calm down. I am not getting over-excited, at least not yet, but it is a bit rich for the Government to present only now, almost a year after the Children Act 1989 came into force on 14 October 1990, a Bill that addresses an issue that should have been addressed when the Children Act was considered both here and in the other House. Had it been so addressed, we should not have needed this Bill.
As the Minister said, we are here because of an oversight in the drafting of legislation that ought not to have happened. We do not blame the Minister personally, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is someone to blame. Since 14 October last, it has not been possible to make a claim for maintenance under the reciprocal enforcement legislation because any such claim could not be processed as a result of someone's oversight in drafting.
Column 901
It has not been possible to initiate proceedings under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 because they refer expressly to a complaints procedure that, as a result of the passing of the Children Act, no longer exists. Under that Act, all procedures have to be initiated by application. Therefore, in the past year or so, about 1,000 applicants have been adversely affected. There ought to be some parliamentary draftsman or Minister, past or present, whose ears are burning because of that oversight. The Minister said that the oversight might have occurred as a result of the speed with which the Children Act was dealt with, and the necessity to get it through. The Lord Chancellor said of the Children Act :"It was a very important stage and one which I would certainly not have liked to have forgone for the sake of ensuring that it was absolutely complete."-- [Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1992 ; Vol. 1538, c. 349.]
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : I seek some information from the hon. Gentleman. Will the 1,000 people who have been disadvantaged get back the money that they have lost?
Mr. Boateng : No, they will not. The hon. Lady puts her finger on the point. For the past year, such people have been without remedy, and that is a cause for concern that I know she will share. Rather than being a party matter, that is one of those oversights that both Houses have a duty, when we are considering legislation, to ensure simply does not happen.
It is no excuse for us to be told that the other place was in a hurry and had to get the Bill through. The whole point about starting Bills in the other place is that their Lordships are supposed not to be in a hurry. They are supposed to be at that wonderful stage in life when they can relax, take it easy and use their considerable endeavours in the unheated and uncontroversial atmosphere that is cultivated in the other place to give measures such as the Children Act the mature and reflective consideration that is required. In this instance, that clearly did not happen.
Not surprisingly, the Opposition welcome the Bill, as the whole House will no doubt welcome it. As the Minister said, it is a modest measure, but it is worth while looking briefly at the context in which it is being introduced. Sadly, matrimonial breakdowns are all too common, resulting in more and more lone parents, whose plight is very real. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the arrangements for initiation of maintenance proceedings and the enforcement of resulting orders are effective.
It is important not only that orders are effective in ensuring that those against whom they are made obey them and respect the order of the court but that the proceedings are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, with the minimum delay, fuss and inconvenience. In so doing, one ensures not only that the parents or parties making the applications receive a rapid remedy to address the financial constraints in which they often find themselves, but that the cost to the public purse through the court system is minimised.
At the moment, only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive regular payments of maintenance. Some research carried out in 1990 showed
| Next Section
| Home Page |