| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 31
incomplete and imperfect reports. That would have been a foolish thing to do. We now have the evidence, and the House can make a judgment.Mr. Den Dover (Chorley) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the completely unacceptable remarks from Iraq on Friday, the allied forces have no intention of winning the war and then losing the peace?
Mr. Hurd : That is entirely right. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Does the Foreign Secretary accept that he made a serious mistake on Friday by not recognising the statement by Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council as a major step forward? The least that he could have done was to order a halt to the weekend bombing raids which have resulted in even more civilian casualties. He could have shown his true concern for peace in the region by flying to Moscow to meet Tariq Aziz to see whether there was a basis for a political settlement. Did he not do that simply because the war aims have changed to the invasion of Iraq and its total annihilation, as indicated by President Bush at the weekend?
Mr. Hurd : Either the hon. Gentleman lives in a wholly unreal world or he does not want us to reverse the aggression. If any of us had done what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would have enabled the Iraqis to benefit from a pause in the bombing, and they would have been able to recover and re-equip. How many extra casualties on our side does the hon. Gentleman contemplate we should risk while pursuing this will-o-the-wisp?
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the vast majority of civilian casualties have been caused by the Iraqis, it is nevertheless impossible for us to tackle a war machine the size of the Iraqi army without the risk of some civilian casualties? At this very moment our pilots are taking risks with their lives in order to minimise casualties. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that those in the media who harp on such casualties invite Saddam Hussein to put more civilians into military installations?
Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is entirely right on his first point and puts it very well. My reply to his second point is that in pursuit of his wicked objectives Saddam Hussein seems to need no encouragement from anybody to put his own civilians and prisoners of war and others in danger.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the Secretary of State confirm the disturbing report at the weekend that the Americans have used the fuel- air explosive weapon in bombing raids on Kuwait? Does he know that, according to reports, such a weapon had been in the possession of Saddam Hussein and that it had been sold to him by Industrias Cardoen of Chile? If this terrible weapon is used, is not there a danger that the war will escalate and that Saddam Hussein will be tempted to use weapons that have hitherto not been used in battle? Was the dropping of the fuel-air explosive weapon carried out in collaboration with other members of the coalition?
Mr. Hurd : I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I have no information.
Column 32
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : In the event of Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait and returning prisoners of war, is it the position of the allies that the alleged link conditions and others will be discussed without commitment at some international gathering? Does the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate to pay some small tribute to the Government of Iran for their constructive role? They have played that role even though Iran itself was invaded in almost exactly the same bloodthirsty way by Iraq and received precious little help and sympathy from anyone.
Mr. Hurd : The Government of Iran have announced and, as far as I can see, have held to their declaration of neutrality. They are trying, like the Soviet Union, to produce a peaceful solution, but it has been clear that Iraq must unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait. Iran has been anxious to ensure that Kuwait does not of its own volition make any territorial concessions to Iraq.
My reply to my hon. Friend's first point is that we have always said that certain matters in the Iraqi list will have to be considered. Arab-Israel is, of course, the outstanding one, but there are others. Iraq appears to be making claims against Kuwait, but when United Nations resolution 660 is implemented the Kuwaitis for sure will have massive claims to make against Iraq for the terrorising of their country. Of course there are matters which will have to be discussed when the war is over, but that is quite different from the specific linking in the Iraqi document.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : May I ask the Foreign Secretary a question of straightforward fact? Before the American President and the British Prime Minister dismissed the Iraqi proposals, did they consult either the Security Council or the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Are the young men that we on the Green Benches are sending to be maimed or possibly to die part of a United Nations force, or part of a British and American force? Well, was the United Nations consulted before the British Prime Minister and the American President dismissed the Iraqi proposals? The answer is surely, "Yes, it was" or "No, it was not."
Mr. Hurd : No, it was not consulted because we are operating under United Nations Security Council resolution 678, which authorises member states--
Mr. Dalyell : The United Nations was not consulted.
Mr. Hurd : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the reply. Resolution 678 authorises member states to take whatever means are necessary to implement the resolution. That is perfectly straightforward. Nobody in New York--neither the Secretary-General nor anybody else--expects the allies, who comprise not only Britain and America, but more than 30 nations, to operate in any other way. The Security Council is now debating the matter. As I said in my statement, most of those who spoke in the debate after the Iraqi announcement reacted in the same way as we have.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Inasmuch as a mention by Iraq for the first time of withdrawal, albeit hedged about with many unacceptable conditions, was the direct consequence of the allied naval blockade, air operations and the tightening of the allied army's noose around the Iraqi armed forces within Kuwait, is it not the case that rather than being seduced by a will-o-the-wisp of
Column 33
diplomacy, Her Majesty's Government, along with the allies, should intensify operations until they reach a successful conclusion?Mr. Hurd : We have no intention of being deflected from operations unless or until it becomes perfectly clear that the intentions, wishes and requirements of the United Nations are being met--not simply by an assurance that they will be met, but by decisive proof that they are being met.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : As the BBC has itself said that its correspondents are not approved to go where they want in Iraq when they want and that they cannot enter Kuwait, would it not be a good idea if my right hon. Friend could arrange for the dissenters in this House to go to Baghdad to explain the policy of the official Opposition, the policy of the House and the policy of the United Nations and every member of the Security Council, which is that Iraq must get out of Kuwait unconditionally? To hear that explained to the Iraqis by people such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would be a good propaganda coup which the BBC and others would be free to report.
Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend has lodged that idea ; it is for others to take it up.
Mr. Benn : As I have been referred to, may I say that I went to Saddam Hussein and said that, but when I returned the BBC did not even interview me to find out what I had discovered.
Column 34
Points of Order
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : On a point of order. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the rights of this House, and I seek your guidance.
This morning two outrages were perpetrated in the capital, one at Paddington station and the other at Victoria. Hon. Members will be desirous of tabling a private notice question, conscious of the fact that those terrorist attacks took place in the constituencies of other hon. Members. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it might have been more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to have come to the House to explain how Her Majesty's Government intend to defeat terrorism instead of giving statements outside this place to the press and to others?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. The point of order was made to me. Although I do not wish this to develop into a statement, I shall call the Minister of State, Home Office to respond.
Mr. Patten : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about this issue, but the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consultation through the usual channels, was, first, that to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity, which would be brought about by ventilating these issues in this place when they are ventilated quite enough in the outside world by the media, was a considerable step that this House could take. Secondly, statements are not made in this House on every occasion when there is a murderous outrage in Northern Ireland. It was for those two reasons that my right hon. Friend took his decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood appreciates those reasons.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to in personal terms, may I explain something? I have fired a gun at a tank and I fear for thousands of young men who might lose their lives. Therefore, I think that people should go in any official capacity to talk about this before endless youngsters are sent to be maimed or--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that point of order because the House accepts that he holds his view strongly, and he has every right so to do. I hope that, for that reason, no unparliamentary expressions were directed to him.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I fully understand and appreciate the points made by the Minister of State, Home Office and agree that the matter could be dealt with in that way, I feel that we might be more reassured if the Minister would say to us that, at some time, the House will debate the safety of the public in transport systems, both under ground and over ground.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Column 35
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us and I understand--
Mrs. Gorman rose--
Mr. Corbyn rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. Please sit down ; I am on my feet. We have a heavy day ahead of us and we should try to finish the business before 7 o'clock, when we shall have to move on to the opposed private business. I shall hear the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but I hope that she will be brief.
Mrs. Gorman : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Could the Minister, while he is here, say how, if we are not to discuss the matter of the terrorist outrages perpetrated this morning, he intends to deal with the point raised by my constituents that, by--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot have that. The hon. Lady is making a point with which I cannot deal because it is not a point of order for me. I am sure that her best course would be to see the Minister and get his explanation.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from the exchanges on the statement that we have just heard that Tariq Aziz is returning to Baghdad with proposals from President Gorbachev. May we have an undertaking from the Government that they will make a further statement on the possibility of obtaining a
Column 36
ceasefire on the basis of the response to President Gorbachev's initiative for peace, which appears to have been ignored by both the British and American Governments?Mr. Speaker : I am sure that that point will have been heard by the Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench.
Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker : By the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments. Ordered,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 41) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulationse 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2564) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the Matter of Rural Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for is consideration.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Column 37
Point of Order
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard two different statements concerning the media. First, you heard Members deploring what was being said by the BBC and the ITV in Baghdad and Ministers defending the right of the two companies to make such reports. Then we heard that the House should not be allowed to debate the two calamities at Paddington and Victoria. There seem to me to be two interpretations of Standing Orders. Some people believe that it is wrong for the media to be reporting in Baghdad, but that when bombs are set off in London the media should be allowed to report extensively what has happened in Victoria and Paddington, although Parliament has no rights in the matter. Is that a new Standing Order?
Mr. Speaker : Order. That has nothing to do with Standing Orders. It is a decision by the Government.
Column 38
Orders of the Day
Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.34 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that children and adults benefit from secure and stable relationships. Sadly, however, we must all recognise that some marriages and other relationships with children break up. As a result, both parties involved suffer emotionally. They certainly suffer financially. When the Bill has received parliamentary scrutiny--I hope that it will receive some all-party agreement as well--and been enacted, it will have an effect on many men, women and children. If it is enacted--it is my hope, of course, that it will be--some people will be affected extremely beneficially.
The purpose behind the Bill is to concentrate on ensuring that those whom the courts have directed to pay maintenance do so, and do so regularly. Maintenance payments should be made to those who the courts have decided should receive that maintenance. Essentially, that is what the Bill is about.
Children are often found to reside in the middle of matrimonial disputes and disputes where children are involved as a result of relationships where there were no marriages. I think that we all agree that children are almost always innocent and often the injured parties in such break-ups. As each Session passes, more and more is being done by the House to protect children. For example, the Children Act 1989 received much all-party assent, and it is soon to come into force. It has already done an enormous amount to forward the cause of children.
Secondly, there is the Criminal Justice Bill, important clauses of which concern the proper protection of child victims in court following the report of Judge Pigot. Again, that Bill will greatly help the cause of children. It will come before us for its first day of consideration on Report on Wednesday. The provisions to which I have referred have been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know in particular that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has a long-standing interest in these matters, which we all respect.
Thirdly, there is the critically important Child Support Bill, which has come from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and was introduced in another place on Thursday of last week.
All in all, the three measures, plus the short but important Bill before us, represent an integrated package to try to help and better the position of children who are so often caught in so many different ways and who are almost always entirely innocent parties.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Patten : I give way to my hon. Friend with great pleasure.
Column 39
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : As someone who practised in the divorce courts, it seems to me that in divorce courts the agony that is experienced by children lies in the prolongation of the arguments that turn on them. They are treated almost like dogs quarrelling over a bone when they are caught up in the middle of a dispute. That is a tragedy.The position of children when disputes take place will be improved by the Bills that are before this place and another place. If the Maintenance Enforcement Bill is enacted, women will know that moneys will be coming to them. That will enable them to build a life for themselves without having to apply for social security and without having moneys docked. It is clear that the Bill is extremely important for women.
Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend has considerable interest in these matters. I am sure that she knows more about civil law and divorce law than someone such as myself, who is neither a barrister nor a solicitor. My hon. Friend is right, if I may say so, when she holds that it is delay in settlement that so often harms children. They are harmed also when they are caught within what seem to be never-ending wrangles about whether the absent partner--it is usually the man, but sometimes it is the woman-- should pay, should pay so much and should pay on certain dates. That harm often continues until the issues are sorted out by the courts.
It would be a mistake to regard the Bill--I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) would not do this--as purely about financial provision. That might, however, be the view of some outside this place. The Bill's provisions will, of course, have an effect on the regularity of financial provision, but ensuring that that provision is adequate and that it is paid regularly will have a material and beneficial effect on children as they go through the appalling traumas that sometimes face them during marital break-down or the break-down of a relationship. That is why we have tried to assist those who have to struggle on by themselves economically after fragmentation of a family bond. That is why we have created a maintenance system to try to help families. I have in mind the work that has been done by the Department of Social Security, including that carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is in his place on the Government Front Bench. Like any system, however, the maintenance system can always be improved.
As I have just said, the Child Support Bill, whose purpose is to help deal with exactly this issue, has just been introduced in another place. That Bill, when it is enacted, will radically alter the system of child maintenance. This Bill does not make such radical changes. Its purpose is rather more simple : to improve maintenance collection and enforcement in England and Wales--in particular, by giving new powers to the courts to help to ensure that payments are made regularly. We all know that regularity of payment is often just as important as the size of the award. Maintenance is no good to its intended recipient unless it is received--and received regularly, so that people may plan properly for themselves and their children. That is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) agrees that it is an important issue.
Column 40
This Bill is being given a Second Reading at a time when another and much larger piece of legislation, in the shape of the Child Support Bill, is waiting in the parliamentary wings--if one may refer to another place as the wings. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall allude briefly to the Child Support Bill. As those hon. Members who have studied the White Paper "Children Come First" know, the purpose of that Bill is to make changes to only one area of maintenance-- child maintenance. The Child Support Bill will affect the whole area of child maintenance. That is its importance to children. It will deal with assessment, collection and the very important matter of enforcement. On the other hand, the very much smaller Bill that we are considering today is limited to collection and enforcement improvements. However, it will affect all maintenance orders--spousal as well as child maintenance.Further--subject to parliamentary approval--the child support agency, which will be set up to administer the legislation, will come into full effect only in April 1996. The provisions of the legislation are expected to be relevant as interim measures until the function of child maintenance collection is completely absorbed by the child support agency. But the Bill will continue to be vital in respect of maintenance orders relating to spouses but not children. It will continue to be of fundamental importance. I can imagine no circumstances arising in the next few decades in which we might want to change it in respect of the collection of maintenance for spouses.
I am sure that, like me, all other hon. Members understand the emotional difficulties and distress that arise when relationships break down. However, though one might try to understand people who run away from their responsibilities, one has to recognise it as a simple fact that far too many people who are obliged to pay maintenance fail to do so. They evade payment in a cold and calculating way, and for as long as possible. They play the maintenance avoidance game with considerable cleverness and exceptional aptitude. It is true that sometimes things go wrong, and the absent spouse finds it impossible to pay as much as he or she would like. I realise that there are some absent spouses who would like to make greater contributions but are unable to do so. On the other hand, there are those who--to use the jargon of government--take a policy decision to go as far as they can and to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of their children. I find that very difficult indeed to understand. It is those people--not the ones who need help--that this Bill is intended to deal with, in the interests of spouses as well as of children.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : I totally agree with the principle that the Minister has just stated. I should like, however, to draw attention to a practical problem. Take the case of a man who remarries and has children by his second wife. Often such a man is under terrific pressure from the second wife and the children of the second marriage because of the maintenance order in respect of the first marriage. The wife and children of the second marriage may actually be living in poverty. I accept what the Minister has said about the need for a sense of responsibility, but I should like to know how he views this practical problem.
Mr. Patten : That emotional pressure can be very great indeed. I hope that it will be possible, during the debate on
Column 41
the Child Support Bill, to examine such issues in rather greater detail. I realise that there may be great emotional pressures, but surely anyone who has taken on the responsibility of children should use all his endeavours to ensure that his responsibilities are met. Great acrimony can arise from responsibilities to a second wife or husband, but the children, who are in the middle, should not have to suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware not just of the economic deprivation but of the emotional turmoil sometimes caused by marital breakdown.Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Under this Bill, if I understand it correctly, the first charge on the absent parent's income--after tax and national insurance--will be his or her own living standards, followed by the second family, in preference to the first. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the situation?
Mr. Patten : That matter will undoubtedly be discussed in Committee. In addition, my hon. Friend may want to refer to it during our consideration of the Child Support Bill--the much bigger piece of legislation that was introduced in another place last Thursday. I shall give a few figures with a view to putting some flesh on the bones of the economic and social problems facing those who fail to receive the maintenance that the courts have decided they should have. In 1989--I apologise to the House for the fact that the 1990 figures were not available--there were more than 80,000 enforcement actions in magistrates courts. Generally a woman--occasionally a man ; sometimes a guardian or parent--has to go to court to secure enforcement of a maintenance order. In 1989, many such proceedings were abortive. All too frequently debtors pay their arrears at the last moment because of the threat of the court hanging over them. What happens in the intervening period? Children, mothers and fathers are put under considerable pressure, and the time and money of courts are wasted. That must stop.
In the rather bureaucratic language "This causes a great waste of court resources" lurk many of the delay problems that one encounters in the magistrates courts. It is entirely wrong that people should play the maintenance system and delay payments. It causes many problems for the courts. The Bill specifically targets those people who attempt to exploit the loopholes in the current system, or who are too disorganised or lazy, or simply too bad, to make regular support payments. Any reasonable means that can be found to foil maintenance default deserves the support of the House.
I shall give one example from the 80,000 cases that went to magistrates courts in 1989. That figure does not necessarily mean 80, 000 individual people, because on some occasions people had to go to court more than once in the calendar year. The worst example that I found--it is not much worse than some--was in Somerset magistrates court. In 1990 that court had to take no fewer than 11 separate enforcement actions against one debtor. Such examples are repeated throughout England and Wales.
I hope that when I describe the Bill's main clauses hon. Members will realise that, although the kernel of this legislative nut is pretty uncomplicated and straightforward, the measure is necessarily wrapped up in some complexity. The Bill may seem somewhat long and complicated for its purpose. That is simply because the law
Column 42
on maintenance is contained in a sizeable number of statutes. Some hon. Members may say that maintenance enforcement and maintenance in general are ripe for consolidation. That may well turn out to be true in the fullness of time. On studying the Bill, my hon. Friends will probably find that there is a great deal of repetition. That is because the law on maintenance is not consolidated. That is a matter to which in the fullness of time we shall undoubtedly need to turn our attention.Although the Bill deals mainly with magistrates courts' powers--much of the collection and enforcement of maintenance is done by those courts--the Bill gives similar powers to the county courts and the High Court. That continues the aims and ideas behind the widely welcomed Children Act 1989, which created a concurrent jurisdiction between the three types of court. Again, we are putting children first.
Clauses 1 and 2 contain the principal provisions of the Bill. They give powers to the High Court, the county courts or magistrates courts to specify the method of payment when making or dealing with a maintenance order. Those powers include entirely new powers to order that maintenance payments should be made by standing order direct to the creditor, or by an attachment of earnings order.
The first method--payment by standing order--will be particularly useful where a debtor is self-employed. On the face of it, the self-employed debtor is a difficult case because he or she cannot be the subject of an attachment of earnings order, especially if he or she is simply too lazy or too disorganised to make regular payments. Once the order has commenced, maintenance payments will become as regular as any of the other payments made by such debtors by that method. It would require a positive action to cancel the standing order.
Some hon. Members may be worried that the power to require a debtor to open a bank account in order that payments can be made by standing order is somewhat draconian. I do not believe that it is and perhaps I should give a word of explanation about the thinking behind it. It is not as draconian as it might first appear. The provision is vital if we are to prevent some debtors from continuing so successfully to play the system simply by dictating the method by which they will pay, or rather not pay. Unless that power is available, a large number of the people who may be involved in maintenance order actions--those who are self-employed--would effectively be able to escape any maintenance order enforcement.
My hon. Friends will probably notice that under the Bill no court is obliged to order that payments be made by standing order. There is no obligation. All the methods of payment given in the Bill are equally available. The Bill makes distinct provision for the parties and any person who may be the recipient of the maintenance, such as a grandmother or grandfather who is looking after the children, to tell the courts what method they prefer. There are four methods of payment--direct payment to the spouse, payment to the courts, payment by standing order and payment by attachment of earnings.
Mr. Lewis Stevens (Nuneaton) : Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the possibility of using direct debits? It may be possible at some stage to consider some type of indexation of maintenance payments. Direct debits have been left out. Is it possible that they will be put in?
Column 43
Mr. Patten : The direct debit is an appalling thought on the face of it. It is not quite the same as a standing order, because either side has the power to vary the direct debit mandate. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which we may have the chance to examine in Committee. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) is careful, he may find himself on that Committee. I do not say that in a threatening way. I shall think about his constructive suggestion, for which I am extremely grateful.Most importantly, if the debtor can show to the court that there is a reason why he or she cannot open an account--for example, because every bank in the area in which he or she lives has refused to allow him or her to do so it will be impossible for the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton to be used, whether by standing order or direct debit. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the power to which I refer does not interfere in any way with the banks' ability to run their business in the way in which they think best. If a debtor is ordered to open a bank account, the order will be against him, not a particular bank, to open an account on his or her behalf. In other words, the order will not specify where the account should be opened.
Mr. Randall : Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), clause 1(5)(b) suggests that payment can be made by standing order or any other form of payment. I am sure that that must include direct debits and other forms of crediting an account. In law those methods are the same to all intents and purposes, apart from direct debits, the mandate for which can be varied, as has been said.
Mr. Patten : There are technical difficulties about using direct debits because the debtor can vary the payment at any time without cancelling the order. That is a point to which we may return in detail during the undoubtedly long hours of the Standing Committee sittings.
Where a debtor is in employment, payment by attachment of earnings may be much the more effective method. At present that can be done only when the maintenance order is offered and the debtor consents, under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. I am advised that in only about 10 per cent. of cases in 1989 did people consent to having an attachment of earnings order made. That is a very small number. I realise that some hon. Members are worried that the Bill will increase the number of attachment of earnings orders in existence and, consequently, the administrative burden that employers have to bear. I do not want to add to the burden on either large or small employers. I understand that fear. I have considered the matter carefully since the debates in another place.
We are urgently considering increasing the administrative charge that employers can deduct when complying with an order. It would be manifestly unfair if the level of charge that employers could apply were kept at perhaps its current level, which is less than the economic cost of making those orders. Consultation is proceeding. Lord Ferrers gave an assurance in another place on the matter. We are consulting the Confederation of British Industry and, I dare say, others on the issue. I hope that during the passage of the Bill through the House I shall be in a position to make an announcement about helping industry and business in that way.
Column 44
What was said in another place bears repetition. We cannot depend on a debtor's consent to use such an effective method of maintenance collection, as fewer than one in 10 debtors have been prepared to give that consent. Last year consent was given in only 7,000 cases. Clause 3 of the Bill has two parts. The first simplifies the procedure by which a creditor gives authority to a justices' clerk to take enforcement action on his behalf, when maintenance payments are made through a magistrates court. Under the present system specific authority must be given on each occasion that a default occurs. The Bill provides that a creditor can give a standing authority--like a standing order--to the court so that every time there is a default the necessary enforcement action can be taken. That will considerably help to smooth the processing of maintenance orders.The second part of clause 3 has teeth. It is clear that sometimes people have been told to pay by a certain method but do not do so. Therefore, there needs to be some sanction. The Bill will impose a sanction of a sum up to a maximum of £1,000--people will have the chance to make representations about it to the court--if a person fails to pay by the method specified by the magistrates court. If there is no element of sanction, people will simply cock a snook at the court, as they do in so many cases at present, and--what is worse--they will badly hurt their spouse, child or children.
Mrs. Gorman : Will my right hon. Friend be clarifying the position of the 7,000 people who pay up? I imagine that there will be some among them who would prefer to pay directly to ensure that their privacy is respected. They might not necessarily want their employer to be involved. Does the Bill contain provision to enable such people to continue to maintain their privacy and to pay directly?
Mr. Patten : As I said earlier, there are five ways to pay : by attachment of earnings order, standing order, any other suitable banking instrument, payment direct to the court and payment direct to the creditor. Therefore, after due debate between the two sides before the magistrates, or in the county court or the High Court, it will be possible for payment to be made in that way.
| Next Section
| Home Page |