House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Feb 1991

Mr. Randall : Unless I misunderstood, I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was referring to privacy when people have to pay by an attachment of earnings order. The Bill would result in other employees having access to some personal details--for example, the fact that someone is divorced. I do not think that the Bill ensures that there would be greater privacy, although the orders will be used far more in the future.

Mr. Patten : I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We are trying to deal with this problem and to prevent 80,000 cases coming before the magistrates courts each year--with the emotional and financial problems involved. If an attachment of earnings order is the chosen method, a certain amount of information has to be given by the court. Such attachments may also be imposed by other means. Clauses 4 to 7 give magistrates courts power to specify the method of payment when varying, reviving or enforcing a maintenance order. Clause 8 allows the justices' clerk power to amend payment when a person no longer claims income support or when he or she

Column 45

subsequently reclaims benefit under section 24A of the Social Security Act 1986. That was a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

Many maintenance orders come before magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. We have remarkably good reciprocal enforcement arrangements with a number of West African countries, with Czechoslovakia and with one or two central European countries, but we have remarkably bad arrangements with some of our western European partners. We are prepared to do the business on behalf of people whose spouses have fled to this country, but, alas, some of our western European partners are not prepared to help out in return.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : I am pleased to learn about the reciprocal arrangements with a number of countries. Will my right hon. Friend give me some guidance on what could happen if a British court has made a decision on payments to a mother and child, the father goes to a country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement, but the mother does not know where he is in that country and cannot trace him? One of my constituents has a spouse in Australia. She cannot track down the home address of her former husband, so she cannot take him to court in Australia to have the British courts' maintenance agreement enforced.

Mr. Patten : I am extremely sorry to hear of that case and I hope that my hon. Friend will write to me with details about his constituent-- perhaps he has already done so--which would give me the chance to look into the matter. Normally, in a country like Australia it should be possible to track down someone from social security records or residence records of various sorts.

For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I must explain how we do things in this country. A group of civil servants are seated, or lurking--however one wishes to describe it--in the Home Office and they make up the central authority. If someone comes to this country from France, for example, and does not pay his or her maintenance order to a spouse or children in France, a French court or the French Government can get in touch with the Home Office, and we do all we possibly can to track down the person, through whatever means are available to us, and to get an enforcement order specified by a British magistrates court on behalf of the French spouse and children. Our system and our record are second to none. However, we need to do more within Council of Europe countries to ensure that our western European partners do more to help people in Britain whose husbands or wives have gone into European jurisdiction. That is an element of the European debate with which many hon. Members are not familiar, but it is one of the many ramifications which face us. We generally have good relations with Australia and the United States.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Are the provisions for paying citizens who have gone to France as good as our provisions for French citizens? Is there reciprocity of treatment in this matter?

Mr. Patten : I must not get dragged too far down that route ; I was referring to international relations in an aside. Reciprocal arrangements do not work well with France and one or two other western European countries and do

Column 46

not benefit people living in this country. However, I think that there has been no criticism of the way in which the British have looked after the interests of French citizens who have applied for orders here. We need to pursue that matter further within our bilateral treaty arrangements.

Many maintenance orders come into magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. Therefore, clause 9, which gives effect to schedule 1, provides for magistrates courts to have similar powers in respect of those orders.

The Bill is small, but it seeks to make sensible changes. I hope that they will be uncontroversial changes to the existing maintenance system and that they will improve the effectiveness of the courts in preventing maintenance default and, should default occur, to assist them to take enforcement action.

I hope that hon. Members will recognise the benefits of the Bill for women and for men who are dependent on maintenance payments and, most of all, the benefits which will undoubtedly flow to children in this country and elsewhere. I commend the Bill to the House. 5.9 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : The Bill aims to improve the procedures for the payment and enforcement of maintenance orders. The major change that I perceive to meet the aims is to allow the courts, when a maintenance order is made, to specify the method of payment. Accordingly, as the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is narrow.

In the 1980s, considerable debate took place on the whole question of family maintenance and, in particular, on whether spouses should continue to be entitled to the so-called meal ticket for life. The outcome was legislation which compelled the courts, after a divorce had taken place, to consider whether the spouse concerned should receive maintenance for a limited term to help her to adjust to the end of her financial dependence on her former husband. That was referred to as the clean break.

This decade has started with a change in the debate, towards the children and the family and the notion that parents will indefinitely have an obligation to support their children, irrespective of the state of the relationship between the parents. Although there must be an obligation to children, some fathers remarry and have children in the second marriage. Often those fathers are under terrific pressure, to which I referred in my intervention, from the second wife who perhaps resents having to bring up children almost in poverty because of a maintenance order from her husband's previous marriage. Notwithstanding the practical issue, it is important to note--the Minister touched on this--that after family break-up the majority of men continue to support their children and their former wives in a reasonable fashion. However, there must be concern that, according to the Minister's figures, an estimated 80,000 enforcement proceedings are held within the court system. I assume that that is the figure per annum.

Mr. John Patten : Yes.

Mr. Randall : That means that some children are being deprived of the financial security to which they should be fully entitled. It should also be said that many fathers who fail to adhere to maintenance orders put their own

Column 47

economic well-being before that of their children. That behaviour is unacceptable. Therefore, I support the idea of improving enforcement to ensure that lone parents and children receive regular incomes.

Another important factor worth mentioning is that a staggering 80 per cent. or so of lone mothers need to claim income support, which means that many children are brought up in households with all the disadvantages of near poverty because their fathers fail to make the necessary provision for them.

The Labour party supports the principle that the court, at the time a maintenance order is made, should be able simultaneously to make an attachment of earnings order so that maintenance costs can be deducted at source from the father's pay packet, with the help of his employer, with the money being passed subsequently to the mother. The main reason for supporting that in principle is that, unlike the existing procedure where action is taken only after default, the default itself can be prevented, which means that children can be protected from much trauma, despair and distress.

While supporting that provision in principle, the Labour party believes that in practical terms the Bill has serious deficiencies which threaten the very children whom we all want to protect. I shall highlight some of the deficiencies later. Perhaps at this stage I should say that some of them could be dealt with by proposals in the Government's White Paper "Children Come First". The Minister referred to the Child Support Bill which will come to the House soon. The White Paper, which was supposed to form the basis of the Government's review of the family justice system, was announced by the Government at the time the House debated the Children Act 1989. That was some time ago but it was announced in the Queen's Speech that a Bill would be published in this Session of Parliament to legislate on the proposals in the White Paper. I understand that the legislation had its First Reading in another place a couple of days ago. I will say within these four walls, because no one else is listening, that I intended to slag the Minister for not doing anything on the matter, but I note the efficiency of his officials, whom we should not mention, which has ensured the First Reading in another place, and which we all welcome.

Clause 1 of the Bill before us refers to the powers of the High Court and of county courts to issue maintenance orders. It also gives those courts powers to specify the method of payment that may be used by a debtor-- usually the husband--to settle maintenance commitments. The key methods of payment may be standing order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, direct debit--I cannot remember whether I saw that in the Bill or read about it in a briefing--or attachment of earnings, which means debiting the debtor's wages. The aim of using the powers is to ensure that maintenance is paid regularly. Hopefully the effect would be to reduce stress and worry for the wife and children.

In addition, much court time could be saved by reducing the effort expended, for example, in issuing enforcement summonses, preparing notifications of arrears and arranging hearings. I ask one question : will the Bill in its present form achieve those desirable objectives? The Labour party doubts it. I refer the House to the

Column 48

comments of the Law Society, which also has doubts. I shall paraphrase what the Law Society said in a briefing sent to hon. Members on 18 February. It had some doubt whether the Bill would significantly increase the payment of maintenance, particularly when the fundamental problem was that the payer either could not or would not pay.

Although the county courts will have new powers to force a debtor to set up a bank account, that will not provide a complete solution. A determined debtor could refuse to pay any funds into his bank account, and a bank cannot deal with a standing order if the debtor does not put in any money in the first place. That is a serious flaw : debtors would still be able to evade their responsibilities. Moreover, when a debtor is a proven bad-debt risk, a bank or building society is extremely unlikely to be prepared to open an account for him in any event.

The Bill also has significant implications for civil liberties. I cannot remember the precise word that the Minister used, but he said that there was a need for sanction

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : May I return to the question of bad debts, and credit rating with building societies and banks? Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that courts should not continue to try to impose maintenance orders. If the courts are put off by bad credit rating, people may be encouraged to achieve such status, perhaps maliciously, knowing full well that they can then avoid liability for maintenance payments.

Mr. Randall : The Opposition entirely support the principle of enforcing maintenance orders. I merely suggest that the proposal with which the Minister dealt at such length could be made to fail to work. If someone definitely does not want to pay, although he can be compelled to open a bank account, he need only fail to put funds into it. As the bank cannot then proceed with the transaction, the system is bound to fail.

Mr. Burns : Could not the courts deal with a systematic defaulter by adopting another means of obtaining the money--for instance, attachment of earnings, withdrawal of social security payments or seizure of goods? Surely the courts must judge for themselves what is the best system to impose on each individual to ensure that mothers receive the funds that the courts have specified.

Mr. Randall : The hon. Gentleman is right. Various mechanisms can be invoked : the Minister listed four. I merely suggest that someone who is intent on not making standing order payments will be able to get away with it. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) looks rather bemused, but surely the position is clear : the debtor goes to court, a maintenance order is made and, at the same time--this is the new element--the method of payment is determined. My point is simply that more court time will be wasted if a debtor is intent on wrecking the system ; he may set up a bank account, but he need only fail to invest any money for the whole thing to fall flat. Meanwhile, his family may be forced to rely on income support.

Mr. Burns : I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but I do not think that the position is as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Surely, in such circumstances, the courts will change the system under which money can be obtained. The hon. Gentleman says that disruption will

Column 49

result, but we must bear in mind that great disruption, and grave injustice, exist under the present system. Surely a mother waiting for maintenance payments will be more reassured by the battery of arrangements in the Bill than by the existing system, under which, more often than not, she will end up resorting to income support because of the methods employed by the courts.

Mr. Randall : I believe that the enforcement weapons now available to the courts will result in more families receiving money through maintenance orders. Like the Law Society, however, I am less sanguine about the system than the hon. Gentleman, because it would be so easy to wreck the whole arrangement by withdrawing money from the bank and putting it into, for instance, a building society.

Mr. John Patten : I entirely understand the practical point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) cited a way of dealing with it, but, if the hon. Gentleman remains unconvinced, has he any practical suggestions to help the Government and those who do not receive their maintenance payments?

Mr. Randall : I could offer some suggestions. The most popular measures for the courts to impose would be attachment of earnings and standing orders--although there are some stopgap measures, which are used only infrequently. Such arrangements would, however, be difficult to impose on, for example, a self-employed person : he will have no money in his bank account to pay a standing order, and attachment of earnings will not work because he will not be on an employer's computerised payroll file. Many small businesses are going into liquidation, but such businesses still employ a large number of people who can slip through the net.

Mr. Stevens : Although those who do not want to pay may still be able to cause trouble, under the present system the adamant--or awkward-- can cause not only difficulties for families, but a good deal of delay. The Bill introduces some measures to improve, if not cure, the lot of many families.

Mr. Randall : I accept that the Bill's aim is to deal with such problems expeditiously, and, as I have said, a number of families will probably be better off if the courts are enabled to enforce orders on debtors. At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State referred to 80,000 proceedings. To how many will that number be reduced? I suggest that it will not be reduced to 10, 20 or 30 ; it may be reduced to 20,000 or 30,000. Even so, that is a very large number. I am not sanguine that these measures will be invincible. I have received advice from varous organisations, in particular the Law Society which is a reputable organisation ; its judgment is sound and it knows what is going on. It should, therefore, be recognised that there is doubt about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

Mr. John Patten : I may be in a position to help the hon. Gentleman. He is concerned about the effect of the Bill if it passes into law. I guess that he wants it to pass into law, as amended in this House and by the other place. No one can say what the outcome will be. However, in 1979 about 7,000 attachment of earnings orders were made. They represented the outcome of 22 per cent. of all enforcement proceedings. In only about 10 per cent. of those did

Column 50

individuals say that they would consent to an attachment of earnings order. Therefore, 90 per cent. did not consent. They will have to do so in future, so that a lot more men, and sometimes women, will have to pay up for their spouses and children--and quite right, too.

Mr. Randall : I welcome those figures. It shows that such measures can work. However, I am not convinced that they will be as effective as both I and, I know, the Minister of State would like them to be. I am dubious, but I am sure that in Committee these drawbacks and concerns will be debated in detail. There will also be the opportunity to table amendments.

There are civil liberties implications. For debating purposes, I intend to put my argument in fairly strong terms. We have a Conservative Government who, it could be argued, are interfering in the personal affairs of private individuals by forcing them, against their will, to open bank accounts and make certain payment transactions in a way that is specified by central Government. The Minister of State will say that we are dealing with defaulters whose actions are detrimental to the well-being of children and wives. I know that the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government, but does he have any personal reservations about the civil liberties implications? This country sometimes goes overboard when it comes to civil liberties, but I feel anxious about the implications here. What are the precedents in British legislation for forcing people to open bank accounts? I am not sure that there are any precedents. I hope that the Minister will deal in specific terms with that question. The arrangements associated with maintenance orders that are made in the High Court and county courts are made directly between the debtor, the husband, and the creditor, the wife. Therefore it is for the debtor and creditor to note which payments have been made and whether there has been default. If the maintenance order debtor is in default, an attachment of earnings order can also be used to enforce the order. The Minister referred to that point, which was also raised in interventions. Attachment of earnings orders are regarded as the best means of enforcement, though they have limitations. If a defaulter regularly changes his job, it can lead to difficulties in finding out who his new employer is and making all the new arrangements to deduct the cost of maintenance from his wages. An example was given of inability to trace somebody. I am making the same point. There is a cost to employers in making the deductions. I believe that employers are entitled to make a further deduction from the debtor's pay packet, amounting to 50p per transaction. The Minister referred to the Confederation of British Industry. I have received a parliamentary brief from the CBI. It is very short but useful, and I welcome it. It, too, has reservations about the future cost of making the deductions. On 14 February the CBI said in its brief, entitled "Maintenance Enforcement Through Attachment of Earnings-- Second Reading, Parliamentary Brief", that

"The use of attachment of earnings orders in cases of maintenance enforcement will impose substantial administrative costs (around £10 per deduction) on employers and place an unwelcome strain on industrial relations. The CBI values the undertaking given at the Lords Committee Stage that employers would be consulted on the implementation and administration of the legislation and welcomes the Department of Social Security's initiation since then of this consultation process."

Column 51

The Minister referred to the consultation process. The brief continues :

"The CBI looks forward to working with the Department to ensure that administrative procedures are simple, certain and, as far as possible, consistent with those for existing forms of attachment order."

From that it is clear that the CBI thinks that the new administrative procedures for attachment of earnings orders may be much more complex than the existing arrangements, to the extent that the deduction may rise from 50p to £10. I should be grateful if the Minister of State would explain who is to pay for that. I had always thought that the 50p was paid by the person who was making the maintenance payments. May this figure be increased to £10 per deduction? I hope that the Minister will explain whether I am right or wrong. Furthermore, can he enlighten us about the ramifications of the levy charged by employers being increased to that level? Has he discussed it with his Department of Social Security colleagues? It is a serious issue.

Since the number of attachment of earnings orders will probably increase if the Bill becomes an Act, does the Minister of State see any reason for the increase in the levy because of the volume of payments? I should not have thought that it would make too much difference, because payments are made per deduction. I should like to know whether volume has anything to do with it. The House should be aware of the CBI's useful statement on the issue.

The Bill empowers courts to issue an attachment of earnings order at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The existing arrangement does not allow a court to make an attachment of earnings order, if requested by the wife or creditor, until arrears exist. Even then, at least 15 days must pass after the order is made. The Labour party welcomes the change, which will improve considerably the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of attachment of earnings orders. A major administrative benefit is that courts will no longer need to spend extra time dealing separately with maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders. More importantly, serving maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders simultaneously will deal with potential defaults before they occur. The Bill will enhance the position of wives and children and reduce the probability of putting them through the trauma and uncertainty of having no income.

Nevertheless, we must keep matters in perspective. Attachment of earnings orders are not always as effective as they might appear at first glance. Although the attachment of earnings orders arrangements aim to reduce defaults, in Committee we shall have to consider loopholes--for example, moonlighting. A debtor could have two or even three jobs which, together, give him a susbstantial income. In court, he could simply declare the name of one employer. Naturally, he would give the name of the employer from whom he received the smallest income and hide the details of the others. The court would then not order his other employers to make a deduction from his wage packet and the family would lose out. I regret that the Government have made no proposals to combat moonlighting.

In addition to the Bill's civil liberties implications, we must also consider the threat to personal privacy, which was mentioned in earlier interventions. Again, the

Column 52

Government have made no provision to protect people against such abuse. The attachment of earnings order provision means that a debtor's personal details--about marriage, maintenance or other matters--will be seen by certain employees in the company where the debtor works. The Bill does not appear to prevent that personal information from being indiscreetly used by certain company employees. For example, a person's promotion prospects could be impaired by the fact that it will be known throughout the company that that person has a broken marriage. In some jobs that may be important. I hope that, in Committee, the Labour party or the Government will table amendments to the Bill to ensure that the privacy of the individual is protected at all times.

Mr. John Carlisle : Does the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about privacy extend to the right afforded to a mother not to reveal the name of her child's father? In certain cases, the father of the child may not be the marriage partner.

Mr. Randall : I was about to come to that issue, but perhaps we can deal with it now. As politicians, we must deal with such questions and weigh up the arguments between civil liberties and privacy. The private details of a person's lifestyle, such as marriage, should not be carelessly disseminated throughout a company or used in telephone calls or references. I deplore such unnecessary and careless abuse of privacy. However, a woman who has a child and does not want to disclose the name of the father-- perhaps she does not know it or has personal reasons for not wishing to disclose it--should not be penalised. For example, the father may be her grandfather, or she may have some other complicated reason for not disclosing the name. I should want to weigh up the arguments carefully before deciding. A court would need to be convinced that a woman had good reasons for not disclosing that information, but the woman should not be denied an income because she is not prepared to disclose it. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) asked a difficult and sensitive question. We have no rigid rules on the issue, but we must be careful and sensitive in dealing with it.

Mrs. Gorman : Like the hon. Gentleman, I have taken much interest in the Bill. I have spoken to many women who are in that position, and they often say that they would rather not pursue the father because they are afraid for their own safety. They want to be independent and to be able to go out to work and earn their own money. They do not want to be caught up in this terrible business, but want their self-respect. Perhaps another Bill could be brought forward to help them.

Mr. Randall : I could not have been more eloquent than the hon. Lady. Her argument is persuasive and shows the complexity and sensitivity of such cases. We should not be too heavy-handed and forceful in those matters ; rather, there must be considerable discretion.

Mr. Stevens : I understand the complexity and difficulties that can occur for some women, but it is important that collusion between parents does not disadvantage their children or the state. I accept that the availability of private information on an attachment of earnings order could be embarrassing if it were improperly used, but if people do not want to get into that position they can pay the maintenance by other means that are completely private to them and the court.

Column 53

Mr. Randall : The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, as he usually does. The Minister referred to the four mechanisms for making payment that are available to the court, and I am considering them individually. One of the problems with attachment of earnings orders is privacy. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about collusion but, as I said to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), any mechanism must offer discretion and flexibility. People who need their case considered sensitively and carefully could suffer under a rigid set of rules.

The attachment of earnings order will be used extensively by county courts because they will be able to decide the payment mechanism when they make a maintenance order. However, the threat of potential abuses of privacy will grow. Labour Members believe that the Government have a clear duty to provide the appropriate mechanism to protect the privacy of people, whether or not they are failing in their duties properly to look after their children. The fact that they are debtors does not mean that we can discard the principle of ensuring people's privacy.

Clauses 2 to 7 deal with the new arrangements to be applied in the magistrates court. Clause 2 provides that a magistrates court must specify the method of payment at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The Minister referred to the four methods of payment that the court can use --direct payment between the debtor and the creditor, via the court, by standing order and by an attachment of earnings order, via the employer.

Magistrates courts have no discretion in adopting one of those methods of payment, but the High Court and the county court have the discretion to decide whether to specify a method of payment when serving a maintenance order. If the reforms in the Bill aimed at preventing arrears are so laudable--the Minister of State has praised them--why have not the Government imposed the same compulsion on the High Court and county courts as they have on magistrates courts? Is there a major principle at stake, or are there merely technical reasons for the difference between magistrates courts and the High Court and county court? If the difference is made for technical reasons, why have not the Government allowed magistrates courts that discretion?

The consequences of that are serious. Families will be more likely to go through the stress and trauma that I referred to purely because technical difficulties exist in preparing appropriate legislation. I shall not speculate on that, but I should like the Minister to give the House a full explanation of that apparent omission from the Bill.

Clause 3 amends the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and, in cases where maintenance payments are made via the court, enables the creditor--the woman--to give the justices' clerk a standing authority to initiate enforcement proceedings once the debtor goes into arrears on his payments. On the face of it, that approach would have considerable benefits for the wife compared with the existing arrangements, which prevent the justices' clerk from taking any action until the wife or creditor has requested him to do so. A major benefit of that reform is that valuable court time could be saved, thereby speeding up the processes of safeguarding the family's income. In addition, the debtor would be encouraged to keep up his regular payments because he would know that the justices' clerk will be monitoring his payments and will quickly take enforcement action if he falls behind.

Column 54

In its brief on the Bill, the Law Society supports giving justices' clerks that standing authority. It says :

"It will now be possible for a creditor to give a standing authority at any time, for the Clerk to take action, which will mean, that the Clerk will not need to receive repeated authorisations from the creditor in the future The Law Society supports the provisions, relating to the introduction of standing authorities to the court clerk, to take enforcement action--this will simplify procedure and ease the burden from lone parents of taking action."

However, it has doubts about the method of payment orders. The National Council for One Parent Families has expressed two concerns about the Bill. The first is that many lone parents are adversely affected by delays in courts' serving procedures, which is caused by a lack of resources. What steps will the Minister take to provide those vital resources to improve serving procedures? It must be a matter of concern that the Bill states that there are no resource implications arising from this legislation. If the Government are genuinely concerned about children and lone parents, should not they take immediate action to speed up court procedures by ensuring that the necessary resources are available? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that because the sheer sluggishness of court procedures seems to be causing many problems. The second concern expressed by the National Council for One Parent Families is that the Bill seems to contain no provisions to deal with the delay in court procedures where a debtor deliberately fails to attend the court hearing in order to avoid making maintenance payments to his family. It believes that if a debtor and his solicitor intentionally fail to attend a court hearing dealing with arrears in maintenance payments, the magistrate should make an order in their absence unless he is satisfied that it is undesirable to do so. Clearly, such behaviour by the debtor is grossly unacceptable and quite irresponsible. I should like to hear the Minister's view. What new provisions do the Government intend to introduce to protect families from such behaviour?

The long title makes the Bill rather narrow. Although some of the provisions seem supportable, we have considerable reservations about what they would mean in practice. Informed opinion outside the House has expressed serious reservations about the Bill's effectiveness. I regret the Government's choice of a long title for the Bill because it is bound to restrict the ability of the House even to propose amendments to alleviate some of the problems encountered by families when fathers fail to face up to their responsibilities.

The Bill is a wasted opportunity. We support some of its provisions but its scope is too narrow. It is defective in practical terms and will have limited benefits.

6 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not take up all the points that he has made. Let me say--in the nicest possible way-- that I felt that his concluding remarks were a little unjust and unduly gloomy about the Bill's prospects of success. I regard the Bill as the hors d'oeuvre before a good lunch--the good lunch being the Child Support Bill, introduced last week in another place, which will no doubt wend its way to this House. The two Bills interact and should not necessarily be seen as totally separate. They are joint Bills and one helps the other.

Column 55

I welcome the Bill, however narrow it may be, because it is a step in the right direction. It deals with the mechanics of collecting child maintenance. It is worth looking beyond the Bill to ensure that the Child Support Bill will tighten up the whole maintenance system. That is beyond the scope of this Bill, but it is important for it to be on the statute book as quickly as possible to bring help and to increase the number of weapons available to the courts to overcome the serious problem of maintenance support.

One must consider the context in order to appreciate the extent of the problem. There are currently more than 1 million lone parents ; 41 per cent. are divorced mothers and 23 per cent. are unmarried mothers. Each year, 41,000 new child maintenance orders, 34,000 lump sum orders and 50,000 consent orders are made and magistrates deal with 28,000 applications for award and variation of maintenance each year. Some 500,000 maintenance accounts and 85,000 enforcement proceedings are dealt with each year.

Problems often arise not with those families in respect of which the courts are able to intervene and have some effect, but with the majority of lone parents who are not getting the financial maintenance that they should or could expect. Hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of taxpayers' money is being used, through the income support system, to support one-parent families when absent parents--they are usually fathers, but I believe that 3 per cent. are mothers--evade their social responsibilities. That is unfair to the taxpayer, but, clearly, no one wants to consider the issue solely from the taxpayers' perspective. It is also grossly unfair to the lone parents because, more often than not, the money that they receive from the state is less than the maintenance that would probably have been--or has been--awarded by the courts.

Once an order has been made, there is the serious problem of enforcing it. That is why the Bill is so important. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the case of a father who gets divorced or splits from his family and children and then forms another family relationship, either inside or outside marriage. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the stress and problems placed upon the second family because of the father's financial responsibility for his first family through court maintenance orders. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, but, with all due respect, he was somewhat cavalier in glossing over the feelings and problems of the first family which has been left by a father who sets up a second home.

Mr. Randall : I thought that I had made it clear on two occasions that I support the principle that parents are responsible for their children, irrespective of what happens to their relationship--whether they remain single or remarry. I accept that principle, but I was tempering the statement by mentioning some of the practical considerations. Many people are on low incomes and second wives may become bolshie and make life difficult. They may think, "Why should I bring my children up in near- poverty?" That is a dilemma for parents and it is a practical consideration which must be taken into account.

Mr. Burns : I appreciate that point. I do not want to sound hard or uncaring--I do not believe that I am--but I think that a father who leaves one family, forms another

Column 56

liaison, either inside or outside marriage, and has more children must bear in mind his responsibility and the implications of his action.

Mr. John Patten : Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is exactly what the Government are trying to do with their twin-track approach in this Bill and the Child Support Bill? We seek to make those who have left one household and some children think twice, or perhaps three or four times, before having more children. Parenthood is for life and it is their duty to maintain the children that they have had and those that they may have. The two Bills together will force them to do that.

Mr. Burns : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his characteristically clear way, he has hit the nail on the head and come to the heart of the problem.

We have discussed the second family and the father who wants to meet his financial responsibilities, although it may be financially difficult for him to do so. The other problem which, sadly, occurs all to often is that of the father who, when establishing a second family, wants to wash his hands completely of the first family and does not want to meet any of his financial responsibilities, whether he can or cannot do so. That is a tragedy as well.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we must always bear in mind the two basic principles of the Bill. The first is that family responsibility should be actively encouraged. I believe that it is still too easy for an individual to walk out of family life. I know that many people give serious consideration to the marital problems, and if a marriage has broken down irretrievably, it is probably in the children's interests for it to be ended, but under the law as it stands, it is far too easy for those who are not prepared to give their marriage a second chance--or to accept counselling that might help save that marriage--to abandon their responsibilities, including their financial responsibilities. That brings us back once again to the need for the Bill.

I am sure that the constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members come to our surgeries with problems emanating from the fact that they are not receiving the maintenance that they should. It is upsetting to listen to the tales of genuine hardship told by mothers who are not only struggling after the traumatic break-up of their marriage--traumatic not just for them but for their children--but having to cope with financial worries because their only source of income is the state. They are then caught in the poverty trap of state benefits from which it is so difficult to break free. More often than not, the reason for that is the attitude and behaviour of the father.

I welcome the fact that the courts are to have increased powers to tighten up on enforcement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us--perhaps we shall have to wait for the Child Support Bill for assurance to be given--that more will be done to give courts powers to track down absent fathers. Not only should more power be given through the tax system to track down absent fathers in this country, but, as I said in an intervention, more power should be available to track down those who may be the subject of British court orders but who have gone overseas. That is crucial.

The second principle that we must not forget is that it is much better to avoid default than to try to rectify the problem once it has occurred. Despite the misgivings of the

Column 57

hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, the Bill will go a long way to tighten up that aspect of the law. At present, maintenance is paid either to the court or directly to the recipient, but there are not enough ways of enforcing the provisions in respect of someone who determinedly defaults on payments. That is why the extra powers are so welcome. In future, payments will be made by standing order. I thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was nitpicking when he took us through the problems of standing orders. I do not think that the standing order provisions will be as difficult to implement as he suggested. Moreover, the standing order option is only one of a number of options that a court can adopt.

Mr. Randall : I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "difficult". I said only that the Government's proposed standing order scheme was utterly open to simple abuse.

Mr. Burns : That is true. My point is that if there is likely to be abuse, and if the scheme is therefore unsuitable in a particular case, the courts will not use that procedure. They may go for attachment of earnings or choose some other way of enforcing payment. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears, even on that narrow issue, are as well founded as he implied. Certainly in respect of those who will not deliberately seek to use the standing order procedures to abuse the system, it will be easier to prove non-payment by examining building society accounts and bank statements.

The other important provision is that relating to the attachment of earnings. At present, the courts use that method only when someone has been wilfully neglectful or has deliberately defaulted. The method is used only in extreme cases. By widening the use of that weapon to magistrates courts, we shall go a long way to help to solve the problem.

I have one or two suggestions for the possible improvement or strengthening of the Bill. I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about court time and about those who deliberately do not turn up for hearings, thus immediately placing the burden on the shoulders of the lone mother awaiting a court decision. I agree with him that it would help to alleviate a great deal of hardship if my right hon. Friend the Minister could re-examine the matter to see whether there is any reasonable way in which the provisions could be tightened up. For example, we might allow magistrates courts to make a decision in the person's absence.

If my memory serves me right, the CBI briefing that we all received referred to a possible cost of up to £10 in respect of an attachment of earnings order. It is not necessarily in anyone's best interests for industry and commerce--the employers--to have to pick up the tab. I welcome the promise that the Government made in the other place to look at the matter further. I hope that something can be done to ensure that the burden is placed fairly and squarely in the pocket of the person directly responsible--the father who is meant to be paying the maintenance--and thus to save industry and commerce expense. That would improve the system and benefit everyone--except possibly the father who will then have to pay more.

Column 58

Will the Government consider the removal of the provision which renders legal aid unavailable in respect of the issue of a county court summons? It is reasonable to ask the Government to look again, even if they eventually find that they cannot meet the request. Let me take up a point made on Second Reading in the other place. Will the Government consider consulting the Inland Revenue about the adjustment of tax codes for those in default as a means of deducting maintenance? People in all walks of life know how efficient the Revenue is in going after its clients and customers and its money. It is almost like a terrier. If we could involve the powers and enthusiasm of the Revenue, we should go a long way towards helping lone mothers and their children.

The most important principle is to ensure that, in questions of divorce and maintenance, the interests of the child are put first. I would enter the caveat that we must not forget or overlook the interests of the mother who has to bring up her children alone, often in the most difficult circumstances.

I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards helping the child by providing for proper and regular financial payments from the father. It also helps to alleviate the burden, worry and frustration of lone mothers. We look forward to the Child Support Bill, which, together with this Bill, constitutes an optimistic and serious way of tackling the problem.

6.19 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : It is very pleasant to be invited to contribute to this debate on the introduction of a Bill that seems to have virtually all-party support. However, the two Members on the Opposition Front Bench must be feeling extremely lonely because no Opposition Back Benchers have been present during the debate, apart from one or two travellers who obviously came into the Chamber to escape the cold outside.

Mr. John Patten : What about the Liberals?

Mr. Carlisle : There have been no Liberal Members here either. It is disturbing that Opposition Members have not been present to debate this important Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, the Bill, regrettably, involves considerable sums of taxpayers' money. Opposition Members should have been here in greater numbers, although I pay credit to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for being present to represent their cause.

When I first considered the Bill, I wondered whether it was a Bill for lone parents, as it had been paraded or whether it was intended to penalise absent fathers. My constituency experience over the past 12 years makes me believe that perhaps the Bill should penalise absent fathers. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware from their constituency experience that the number of absent married or unmarried fathers is increasing, and that fact has been brought to our attention by the lone- parent mothers involved. In the 12 years that I have represented my constituency the number of absent fathers has increased dramatically. It is high time that the Government introduced such a measure, and we look forward to the Bill's twin--the Child

Column 59

Support Bill which is in another place--as a means of strengthening the powers of the courts against absent fathers.

Absent fathers are prevalent at the moment and they cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money. They also bring misery upon misery to thousands of women and children. That misery is totally unnecessary and in many cases is callous. I can tell hon. Ladies who are present in the Chamber now that, although in the past perhaps I have not been too friendly to their causes and their gender, in this particular case they have my total sympathy. Absent fathers cause considerable misery.

I share the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West at the conclusion of his speech. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough--although it may be extended in the Child Support Bill. In many cases the fathers are not named and in some cases they are not known. In my constituency, in some cases the father is not known until the child is born and the colour of its skin is revealed. That perhaps gives some hint about the extent of the problem. [H on. Members-- : "Oh".] I can understand my colleagues tutting when I say that, but such things happen.

In virtually every case the father gets away with it. He avoids any responsibility to the mother and to the child. He also gets away with any responsibility to the taxpayer because the taxpayer must pick up the tab.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford took up a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the courts enforcing orders against absent fathers who deliberately make themselves unemployed at certain times of the year when child maintenance orders are being made against them or are being upgraded in financial terms. I know of a sad case within my family where the absent father is a deep sea diver. He deliberately arranges for the court hearing to be heard when he knows that he will be unemployed because his work is seasonal. When the day is named for the case, he absents himself and the case is adjourned. In many cases adjournments are sought by absent or negligent fathers--call them what one will--on the basis that they know that the courts will not hear the case and it will be delayed. In every case the lone mother or the children involved suffer as a consequence.

Next Section

Home Page