HC Deb 17 June 1966 vol 729 cc1880-7

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers I would like to ask the right hon. Lady one or two questions about this Clause, which deals with maintenance orders, for a wife who has had to divorce her husband, or for a deserted wife who has an order.

I hope that I may solicit the support of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), as she wrote an excellent article in The Guardian in which she said: It appears to do nothing specific for the fatherless families, including the 'court order' mothers who spend too much of their time hanging round the courts each week to see if their errant men have sent the money as ordered. These women should be able to collect their money from the new Ministry of Social Security, which in turn should deal with the payments from their menfolk.

I know that the Minister will agree with me that Scotland has a much better method of doing this. In this connection, we were able to follow the Scottish idea and introduce it in the Maintenance Orders Acts, which, I regret to say, is not working as well as it should. On so many occasions it happens that women, thinking that there is going to be money in the court, go there to find only that there is nothing, and have to go round to another office to get their supplementary pension and assistance from the National Assistance Board.

I understand that the Commission can make a complaint to the magistrates' court and if money is not paid into the court, it can help this woman. I want to suggest that it would be much more satisfactory if in future the Commission paid the total amount of money which the woman should be receiving weekly directly to her. It could then claim the money from the court. In smaller amounts it is not so difficult but the other day I had a case in which a woman was supposed to have £15 a week.

The woman's ex-husband did not pay this and she was forced to go to the National Insurance Board—she had seven children. To escape having an order made against him with his employer the husband paid in a lump sum and immediately the National Assistance Board claimed back a certain percentage of the money which it had paid to her. By this time, because she was not getting the full amount of £15 each week she was not in a position to repay the Board at once and it will take her some considerable time, even if the husband pays consistently.

I hope that in future the Commission will take full responsibility for the amount which the woman should be receiving weekly or monthly. This business of the woman having to go to the court week after week only to find that the money is not there and then having to pay extra bus fares, leave her children behind and go to the Commission to get the money is most unsatisfactory. It is within the powers of the existing Board to take this action, but it is done all too infrequently. I would have liked to see it made obligatory that the Commission should pay this woman so that she has some real security.

Most of these women do not know from week to week what money they are to receive. It may be £5 one week and £7 the next, and so on. It is extremely difficult when there are children. If one cannot have this point removed from the Bill as I would like to see, I hope that the right hon. Lady will emphasise to the Commission and others that some definite action should be taken to see that this very unhappy state of affairs does not continue. I should have thought, and I have already discussed this with the right hon. Lady, that a mark could be put on the National Insurance card to show that the man was ordered to pay money.

After all, we have our motor car licences endorsed. I know that the argument is that if an employer saw this on the card he might say that he would not employ this person. That does not hold any water, because if the court was doing its job it could trace this man if he left say a builder's firm to go to a grocers. It could automatically pass this order on from one firm to the other and it would save a great deal of work and trouble. The important thing is that the employer should know that the man has been told by the court that he has to pay.

I will not press this point, but I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider it. The point which I do want to press is that it should be made obligatory upon the Commission to pay the woman the sum of money which she should receive through the courts, plus her supplementation regularly each week instead of her having to go to the courts and then, because there is no money there, round to the Commission office, begging in a way, and then to find that she may get a certain sum, more or less. It is not even consistent. I hope that the right hon. Lady will look into this very important point.

Mrs. Lena Jeger

I am indebted to the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has done so much of this kind, for her kindly references to my own views which have been expressed outside Parliament and which, I therefore feel, I must repeat here.

The whole problem of the fatherless family, of course, goes far beyond the Bill and raises many issues concerning matrimonial and other legislation. However, I am most anxious that we should give more attention to what I have called the "court order mother". There is too much of an over masculinity about the provisions which we make and too little sensitivity to the feelings of a woman who has to go to court to get money. To ordinary people courts have an ambience of criminality; they are places to which one goes when one has done something wrong. It should not be to these places that a deserted wife has to go week after week, often trailing two or three children with her.

I much regret, now that we are setting up this Ministry of Social Security, that apparently we have not been able to bring within its ambit this group of women who seem to need social security in its widest sense probably more than any other group in the country. I agree that a certain amount of discretion is available to National Assistance Board officers and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it absolutely clear that she wants that disception to be used with the utmost sympathy and consideration. I stress that because with regret I must say that I know of cases under the existing situation in which that has not always been so.

I know of a woman with seven children who has turned up at a court on a Friday morning to collect her money, found that it was not there, and had absolutely no money for the weekend shopping. She was told by the court to go to the National Assistance Board. It cost her her last few coppers in fares to get to the Board, where an officer told her that perhaps the money would be in the court in the afternoon post and that she ought to go back to the court and wait to see if it was. That woman had no midday meal that day and nor did her children. They got back to the court, but there was no money in the afternoon post and by the time she got back to the Assistance Board on borrowed money, the office was closed.

I hope that that was an exceptional case, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise to officials that it is the wish of the House of Commons that the utmost consideration should be given to these people and that any steps which can be taken, administratively or locally, to save such women trailing around the police courts should be taken.

Mr. Dean

If only a man may be allowed to intervene briefly in this debate, I should like to support very strongly what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). They have made a strong case to show that the more we can get the National Assistance Board to do this job and so ensure a regular income to these women, the more the anxieties of these women will be allayed.

I have met, as no doubt other hon. Members have, a number of constituency cases in which the women concerned have had no idea that the Board would take on this job. I had one only a few weeks ago. A woman who was getting assistance and whose husband was in arrears and who was in considerable difficulty had no idea that the Board would do this job for her. I am in no way criticising the officers concerned. It so happened that there had not been a visit for some time and this matter fist came into the open when this lady wrote to me.

I hope that the right hon. Lady will stress to the Commission's officers the need to make widely known the services which they are able to provide for these women.

11.45 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers), the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). As a magistrate who often hears cases of this sort, I should like to know whether there have been discussions with the magistrates about this matter. Quite apart from the human side, it would be of great assistance to the officers of magistrates' courts if this responsibility could be put on to the National Assistance Board.

I have no doubt that hon. Members with magisterial responsibilities will be aware of the great problem which arises when dealing with these cases. After the decisions have been taken, magistrates' courts are not geared to accept the kind of responsibility for individuals which is accepted by the Board.

I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport raise this issue. We have the opportunity to strike a blow to improve the procedure to be followed. When sitting on the bench, I have often thought that decisions represented only rough and ready justice, as the magistrates' courts are not geared to obtaining all the information which is available to the experienced officers of the Board. As the courts are filled every clay with people on ordinary business, it would be a very good thing to be able to reduce that number, and those connected with the procedure of the courts and the staff concerned with dealing with the decisions of magistrates would all be extremely grateful if we could have a procedure such as has been suggested.

I support what has been so eloquently said, but I would also like to know whether this matter has been discussed at top level with the magistrates.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland)

Once again, we have reached a Clause to some of the human aspects of which hon. Members have rightly drawn the attention of the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said, many of the issues go far beyond the provisions of the Clause. I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), that the debate will be care- fully read by those concerned. The answer to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is that, through the Commission, my right hon. Friend will ensure that it is widely known how these women can improve their position, and that they understand their position when they reach these unfortunate circumstances.

We were asked whether the Commission would be exepected to deal sympathetically and with understanding with cases of this sort. Of course it will, as is the case now with the National Assistance Board. I am given to understand that there have already been negotiations with the Justices' Clerks Society on these matters, arising out of the Bill of Baroness Summerskill, in another place.

The Clause empowers the Commission to proceed for recovery of the cost of benefit awarded under the Bill, against persons who are liable for maintenance under Clause 22. The Clause closely follows Section 43 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, except that the orders are to be enforced as affiliation orders and the proceedings are to be domestic proceedings.

All I can say now in reply to the debate—the points we take with full understanding—is that all the matters which have been mentioned will be carefully considered and dealt with sympathetically and with understanding by the Commission.

Dame Joan Vickers

We have had sympathy and understanding before and I am now asking for action. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has spoken of cases of the type which I have known of a woman going to the National Assistance Board office and being told to return to the courts.

There is also great difficulty when money is supposed to be paid in most cases on Friday. Most offices are closed on Saturday or are open with only a skeleton staff. We need to act in cases like this. This is where the whole thing falls down.

I make a strong plea that as the Commission has the right to recover the money—very often a man is only asked to pay 30s.—it should give the woman £7 a week as of right and collect the 30s. from the man. If the man does not pay, the Ministry should suffer the loss rather than the individual.

These very small amounts are causing tremendous hardship and insecurity. I thought that the Bill was supposed to put this right. We have had sympathy and understanding. I want to see action and a concrete amount each week on which a woman can rely for looking after herself and her family.

Dame Irene Ward

I should like an answer to a point which I raised. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to consultations arising out of Baroness Summerskill's Bill, but that is only in operation in another place now. We are dealing with a very important Bill today.

Mr. Pentland

Baroness Summerskill's Bill is not in operation in another place now. What the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth read is of a similar type of Bill, which I understand is coming forward at a future date. The negotiations with the Justices' Clerks' Society arose out of the previous Bill brought forward by Baroness Summerskill.

Dame Irene Ward

May I hear what resulted from the discussions with the Society?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.