HC Deb 08 May 1978 vol 949 cc789-90
Mr. Litterick

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific matter concerning a constituent of mine which also raises general principles of great public importance which, in my opinion, should be examined as a matter of urgency, namely, the treatment of a supplementary benefit claimant, an unmarried mother, by an official of the Department of Health and Social Security at the Bradford Street, Birmingham, office of that Department, and the implications of this case in the administration of the supplementary benefit system". The matter concerns an unmarried mother who is a recipient of supplementary benefit and who has been since her unemployment benefit failed. She was summoned to the Bradford Street offices of the Department of Health and Social Security last Wednesday, and there she was confronted by what I can only describe as a social security storm trooper in the form of a female interrogator, who proceeded to abuse and threaten her in the following manner.

This interrogator accused my constituent of neglecting her baby, on no evidence at all, never having seen the child. She talked in terms of—here I quote—"people like me who have to pay taxes to keep people like you"—her victim—and she asked impertinent questions about my constituent's private life. Secondly, she threatened my constituent in so far as she threatened to have her fiancé, the father of the baby, sued, and she also indicated by way of threat that she could have, or arrange to have, her baby taken away from her.

Finally, this interrogator had my constituent's benefit reduced from £14.50 a week to £10.50 a week and gave her no explanation at all of why this was being done.

The House will recall that Professor Donnison, the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, early last year announced or indicated that, so far as he was concerned, incidents such as this would not be allowed to happen again. It seems from this incident that Mr. Bumble is alive and thriving in the Bradford Street offices of the DHSS, and in my opinion the bitch who committed this atrocity against my constituent should be fired. But, much more important, the principle of allowing subversives to infiltrate the social security systems deserves the immediate attention of the House, since the purposes which the British people willed in creating the Welfare State are being frustrated and subverted by such people as this.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of considering a matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the treatment of a supplementary benefit claimant, an unmarried mother, by an official of the Department of Health and Social Security at the Bradford Street, Birmingham, office of that Department, and the implications of this case in the administration of the supplementary benefit system. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot accede to his request.

Mr. Nott

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter not on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench but in a personal capacity. May I ask you, Sir, whether the procedures of the House, and, indeed, the absolute privilege which we fortunately enjoy, are to be used as a cloak to call members of the Civil Service "bitches", which was the term used? To what extent is the House to be used—our proceedings are now often broadcast—for such purposes? I think it intolerable that the Standing Order No. 9 procedure should be used in this way.

Mr. Litterick

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege to raise these matters under the Standing Order, as it is the privilege of every other Member. As a distinguished Member said only last week, it is our privilege to use those privileges as we see fit on behalf of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker

I must say to the House that there has been a report from the Select Committee on this very question of the use of Standing Order No. 9 and the request for an emergency debate, and the sooner we discuss that report the better.