|
Speeches
> Public Accounts Debate
> Back
From House of Commons
Hansard
18th July 2006
Mr Sadiq Khan (Tooting)
(Lab): I begin as other colleagues have ended, by paying
tribute to Nick Wright, Chris Randall, Emma Sawyer and
Ronnie Jefferson who run the Committee’s office so
efficiently, and also to the Comptroller and Auditor
General,Sir John Bourn, and his team at the NAO, who really
are top drawer. I note the time, so I will focus primarily
on two particular reports in the motion, the 22nd and the
37th reports, that may not otherwise receive the attention
that I believe they deserve.
Last time we discussed a PAC report in January 2006, the
Financial Secretary described our work as a tour de force.
However, it is not just the Financial Secretary or the
Treasury who take an interest in our reports. It is not even
the “Today” programme, which cherry-picks and selects the
most outrageously critical comments of the Chairman against
the Government, which has an interest in the work that we
do. What is remarkable is how non-governmental
organisations, pressure groups, constituents and other
Departments take an interest in our work, and the work that
we do provides an opening or a springboard for things that
they can do.
The 22nd report was one such report. The Chairman in his
comments talked about the impact on the end user, and the
22nd report is a good example. That report was on the
subject of maintaining and improving Britain’s railway
stations. As all constituents in Tooting will know, I have
been campaigning for improvements in Earlsfield station in
my constituency for some time now. At the beginning of this
month, a help point was installed, which enables disabled
passengers to utilise a free taxi service that will take
them to an accessible station. This followed confirmation
that I received at the Committee meeting on 12 October that
the Association of Train Operating Companies would be
investing £600,000 to improve such facilities across the
network, and train operating companies such as South West
Trains have followed that lead.
However, in its report the Committee highlighted the fact
that more than half of the country’s stations are not fully
accessible to the disabled. That led me to table early-day
motion 911, which 141 colleagues have signed, although one
or two Committee members still have not done so, and I
highly recommend them to do so. The situation highlighted by
our Committee and by the early-day motion is clearly
unacceptable. Therefore, as I said earlier, I welcome the
Department for Transport’s commitment to invest £370 million
over the next decade to address the issues that we raised,
which are in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995.
I was disappointed that Earlsfield was not included in the
47 stations initially chosen for the study, but I am pleased
about the objectives outlined in the railways for all
strategy. Once again, I would like the Committee to take
some of the credit for the conclusions that that strategy
reached. It called for improvements to be made in a shorter
time frame, and our report highlighted that insufficient
attention had been paid to the quality of stations. Now that
the Department for Transport is responsible for stations
strategy, I hope that it will respond accordingly to that
recommendation.
Station security is another important area that the
Committee investigated, and I note that my hon. Friend the
Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) will hand in a petition
tomorrow highlighting concerns that we first raised in our
Committee. Balham station in my constituency particularly
concerned me, and I raised the matter in Committee, because
there appeared to be complacency about passenger security.
Our Committee highlighted the point that few train operating
companies had joined national schemes to improve security
and reduce crime.
The report cited the three most reassuring facilities for
passengers—the presence of staff, effective lighting and
closed circuit television. I acknowledge that the Treasury
has contended that improvements to personal safety will only
increase train usage by approximately2 per cent., as opposed
to the 11 per cent. figure quoted in the report, but that
does not reduce the significance of safer stations, and I am
sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the
House when I say that the safety and security of our
constituents is of paramount importance.
The report also confirmed that the original franchise
agreements failed to place suitable emphasis on the
improvement of facilities. I therefore welcome the
Government’s increased expectations regarding station
security within future franchise agreements. Investment in
British Transport police increased by 24 per cent. in the
past year, as the issue began to receive the necessary
recognition.
The Committee also highlighted the complicated and
inflexible procedures employed by Network Rail, which many
see as an obstacle in the path of improvement to station
services. The majority of our stations around the country
are more than 100 years old, and approximately 15 per cent.
of them are listed buildings. Moreover, as I learned at
first hand, too many organisations are responsible for
station maintenance. I understand that work is under way on
a new stations’ code to establish more effective contractual
arrangements, and I believe that that is essential if
stations are to make progress on maintenance, security and
facilities.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has
mentioned the Committee’s 37th report, “Inland Revenue
Standard Report: New Tax Credits”, and my hon. Friend the
Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) has
mentioned the 36th report, which is connected to it. When we
questioned the chairman of HM Revenue and Customs on 14
December in Committee, I established that tax credits had
the highest take-up of any benefit delivered through a
credit system. Tax credits benefit at least 3,600 families
in my constituency and a total of 6.1 million families
nationwide, which include 10 million children. I understand
from the evidence that we heard and from the excellent
questions that I asked—
Mr Davidson: You did.
Mr Khan: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend
has complimented my questioning, and I thank him for the
compliment.
Kitty Ussher: So do I.
Mr Khan: Another hon. Friend has also complimented
me.
I understand that the take-up rate is particularly high
among low-income families at 93 per cent. compared with only
47 per cent. for the old working families tax credit. I
welcome the commitment by the Government, the Treasury and
HMRC to improve the efficiency of tax credit administration.
The problems associated with overpayments highlighted in the
report have prevented that laudable scheme from receiving
the praise that it certainly deserves. Overpayments are
inherent in the system, because of the provisional nature of
the awards. I have been assured that HMRC is confident that
the changes implemented by the Government, which are
outlined in the report, will ensure that overpayments are
significantly reduced. The disregard for income increases
has been raised from £2,500 to £25,000, and claimants must
advise HMRC of changes in their circumstances within one
month.
The report also raised concerns about error and fraud. The
hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has touched on those
concerns, and I will not rehearse his points.
Mr Heath: I sincerely hope that HMRC is coming to
terms with improving the system to prevent fraud. However,
some constituents have told it several times about changes
of circumstance, but nothing has happened—it is as though
the letters have disappeared into the ether—which means that
they are still overpaid, despite having done everything that
they can to notify it. Is that not a cause for some concern?
Mr Khan: Absolutely. The permanent secretary who gave
evidence to our Committee took that on the chin and said
that the Department will not seek to recover whatever
payments are made through no fault of the claimant. That is
some comfort to the distressed constituents mentioned by the
hon. Gentleman.
As we heard in our evidence, increased attempts at tax
credit fraud resulted in the website being closed down. I
welcome the Government’s decision to double the number of
pre-payment checks before issuing a tax credit award. The
Committee was reassured that the majority of attempts to
commit identity fraud through the tax credit system were
prevented. Nevertheless, I am pleased that HMRC will now be
more proactive in contacting certain claimants. The
Financial Secretary has taken this issue very seriously, as
has his Department. Nevertheless, it is important to
maintain the right balance between keeping the system
user-friendly, thereby maintaining a high take-up and
helping the most vulnerable in our communities, and
preventing fraud and overpayments.
Mr Davidson: May I say that the excellence of my hon.
Friend’s questions is matched only by the magnificence of
his speeches? Does he agree that the PAC offers the only
forum where it is possible to have a non-partisan discussion
about a scheme such as tax credits, which provides an
enormous amount of benefits to a large number of people yet
has some clear difficulties and problems? In the Chamber, we
often end up with yah-boo politics that generate a great
deal of heat but very little light as regards clarifying the
difficulties.
Mr Khan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and would
recommend three sources that confirm what he says. First,
the report prepared by the NAO was based on facts and
figures rather than dogma. Secondly, the transcript of our
evidence, including the questions asked by the Chairman and
other hon. Members on both sides of the House, concerned the
process and implementation of the scheme rather than the
party politics. Thirdly, the PAC report was very balanced
and dealt with the facts, problems and challenges while
recognising the benefits in a non-party political way. It is
a shame that, the day after our report was published, the
“Today” programme decided to cherry-pick the criticisms, not
the excellent and balanced parts that were of a non-party
political nature.
I should like to end with a couple of words of caution.
First, an issue raised in January this year has still not
been dealt with—namely, that very good reports are being
produced but they are produced too long after the initial
NAO reports. When our Chairman wound up the previous debate,
he said that he would look into that. I think that a huge
amount of progress still needs to be made.
Secondly, the purpose of the PAC is to provide parliamentary
scrutiny of the Executive, but that does not mean that it
always needs to be critical. The hon. Member for Somerton
and Frome—I think that I have quoted him three times in my
speech, which must be a record, and always with a generous
interpretation of his words—highlighted good practice, best
practice and excellent practice that appear to have been
lost. I am concerned that in providing parliamentary
scrutiny of the Executive, the PAC may be seen merely to be
critical when it will sometimes be complimentary. That may
lead to our Committee being perceived in a way that is
unhelpful to those who give evidence, and those of us who
are members may become cynical in that regard. Witnesses,
who often want to come and be open and get to the root of
the problems, may become wary of doing so because of our
reputation.
I hope that the experience of the past 300 years will
continue in terms of the spirit of our Committee in
providing scrutiny, some good and some not so good.
Back to Speeches
Page
| 
