| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 6, line 41, leave out from him' to end of line 45 and insert
; or--
(b) no such allowance is paid but he is disabled,'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following : Amendment No. 98, in page 6, line 45, at end insert-- (d) he is registered as disabled in a register maintained under Schedule 2, paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989.'. Government amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 99, in clause 50, page 34, line 42, at end insert-- "registered as disabled" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989.'.
Mr. Scott : All these amendments seek to address the same problem. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that there is so little between us that she can accept the Government's approach.
Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101 seek to expand the possible range of cases where courts can consider top-up awards of maintenance for the extra costs of caring for a disabled child. Following very careful consideration of all the views expressed on the most appropriate way of continuing to provide access to extra maintenance for a disabled child, the Government have provided in this clause for courts to be able to consider top-up awards.
When the amendment was discussed in Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained that the Government believed that this was the best way to protect the interests of the child. The services of the Child Support Agency and the standard formula would be available, as for other children, for ordinary expenses, but the courts would be able to consider applications for extra maintenance, looking at the circumstances of each case and making awards tailored to those circumstances.
Our original path in seeking to achieve that aim was to choose payment of the disability living allowance for the child, or the registration of the child as blind, as the two definitions of cases where courts would be able to make these awards. We did that because we believed initially that it provided a clear and easily understood criterion that would make it clear both to parents and to courts who could apply.
Representations were made to us and there were discussions about it in Committee. Amendments were also tabled by the hon. Member for Eccles. It was said that this was too narrow a definition to deal with the generality of children with disabilities of one sort or another. I was particularly concerned about two groups : children under the age of five who would be unable to qualify for the mobility component of the disabilty living allowance and those who are deaf or who cannot speak. We believe that our previous approach would have excluded some children
Column 540
who are genuinely disabled to whom the courts currently can consider making the extra maintenance award. We should have been narrowing rather than expanding the present provision.We are looking at circumstances in which the courts should be able to consider whether and how much maintenance the absent parent should pay because the child is disabled. The courts can consider this issue, alongside others, when making maintenance awards. The payment of the disability living allowance provides a convenient signpost, but because its role is different it is possible that some cases in addition to the registered blind--some of which I have already mentioned--should be brought within the definition. It will be possible, therefore, to apply to the courts to consider top-up awards for any child for whom the disability living allowance is paid, or who is blind, deaf, without speech or substantially and permanently handicappped.
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Eccles that this aproach is similar to the one that she adopted in her amendments, but I believe that our approach is better, for one reason. Our amendments focus directly on the children and provide that there is no hurdle that a parent has to overcome. The Children Act 1989, which the hon. Lady understandably used as her vehicle, places a duty on local authorities to set up a register for their area. That is intended not as a qualifying stage for access to services but as a planning tool for local authorities, to help them to make decisions about the provision of services. Parents can choose absolutely freely whether or not their child should be registered. Some parents--no doubt for perfectly valid reasons--may choose not to do so. Our approach-- to include these definitions in the amendments--is what is needed. Therefore, I hope the hon. Lady will feel able--
Miss Emma Nicholson : Do the words "mental disorder" cover mental handicap and psychiatric concerns? Is it a portmanteau phrase covering both? I should hate to see a mentally handicapped child not specifically identified in the Bill
Mr. Scott : I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I reassure her that it is the compendium definition.
I hope that I have convinced the House that we have listened carefully to the representations that have been made to us and that we have responded to them with sympathy and in the most practical manner.
6 pm
Miss Lestor : I welcome the Government's recognition of the need for consistency in the definition of disabled children. With the explanations that the Minister has given, there is now consistency between the Child Support Bill and the Children Act 1989. The difficulty that we want to discuss is that the Bill does not meet all the requirements of the Children Act because children with disabilities will not be treated in the same way as all other children. Representations about that have been made by the Spastics Society, Barnardos and hon. Members concerned, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I accept that the Government's amendments are slightly better than mine because I understand that many parents may not wish to put their disabled child on a register for disabled people. There was never any real logic behind
Column 541
concentrating on the receipt of disabled living allowance or being registered blind as a passport to the courts for the top-up of the costs of disability. Therefore, by incorporating the much broader definition of disability, children not in receipt of benefits will be included. It was made clear in Committee that that is particularly relevant for deaf children. However, it is a double-edged sword. I welcome the inclusion of a broader definition, but only if it does not mean that more disabled children and their families will be forced to use the courts to gain an appropriate level of maintenance.The Minister is right to say that I have looked constantly at the Children Act because it has provided a springboard when considering children. Even with the concession that has been made, the Child Support Bill contradicts the principle of the Children Act which is that children should be treated as children first, whatever their circumstances or disabilities. By pushing disabled children into the courts for top-up benefits we are not treating all children alike. The Children Act also stated that, because delays in the courts are likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, that should be avoided. I fear that delays prejudicial to the welfare of children with disabilities will inevitably arise under the proposed maintenance arrangements. Therefore, although I have said that I welcome the definition and the concession, it is now more important than ever that the courts are reformed--I accept that that is not part of this Bill, but the plea for family courts has been made over and over again--or that child support officers should be given discretionary powers to deal with costs related to disability. It would still be possible to incorporate an element to cover a proportion of disability costs in the formula.
If the new system is to work, the Child Support Agency must be given powers beyond those already suggested in the Bill. To ensure the welfare of the child we must use fully the discretionary powers in new clause 5 to which I referred earlier. The child support officers should have discretionary powers to assess the extra costs of disability for maintenance purposes.
Unless those suggestions are taken on board, even with the changes that the Government have announced, the pressure on the courts is unlikely to be reduced and children with disabilities will still be subjected to an unreliable and unjust system that contradicts the principle in the Children Act that all children should be treated the same.
Miss Emma Nicholson : Like other members of the Committee that considered this Bill, I have received letters from Barnardos and other organisations that look after handicapped children and have done so for 100 years or more. I have read the letters carefully and studied the points made. Like other hon. Members, I was concerned that somehow the particular needs of disabled children had not been identified clearly enough in the Bill.
However, I am comfortable with the Minister's initial proposals. I say "initial" because I feel confident that he will take care to scrutinise the workings of what I believe will be the new Act since his service and work for the disabled community throughout the United Kingdom has been outstanding. I have considerable knowledge of that
Column 542
since I am involved with a number of organisations for disabled children and I know of the exceptionally high regard in which he is held.Despite the known concern and knowledge of the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I should have been worried had we gone down the route of the disabled register. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to forget the validity of the registers in the eyes of disabled people. People who are disadvantaged do not wish to be identified as such and I believe sincerely that asking people with a disability to identify themselves and put their names down, thus opening themselves up to self-denigration and external physical harassment, is not a humanitarian way to behave. In my constituency there is a tragic case of parents with a Tay Sachs child and two young men were arrested for physical harassment of those parents. Therefore, identification of disability sometimes attracts a wretched and non-humanitarian response.
I accept that, because we do not have that complete identification, there may be some gaps. That is why the new proposals will need careful scrutiny. I know also that occasionally there will be delays in courts of law. However, I feel confident that the Bill has been thought through carefully and that the essence of care for children is its hallmark. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister's amendments will stand the test of time. I know that my hon. Friend will look at them and monitor them throughout and alter them by regulation if that should prove necessary.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I welcome amendment No. 101. I share a little of the concern about delays in tribunals or courts which was expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). I know that the Minister will keep that in mind. Perhaps he will nudge the Law Officer into moving towards reform of the court system so that we can have the family courts for which some of us have been asking for some time.
The Minister knows of my concern in these matters. Do the words "mental disorder" and the definition that he gave include autistic children?
Mr. Scott : I shall respond to the interventions from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I cannot accept that by going down the route that we have chosen and enabling disabled children to have standard maintenance as well as maintenance related to their disability we will be disadvantaging them or their families. The top-up for which the court will be responsible will take total account of the expenses related to the disability and, in a way, will provide an off-the-peg service in meeting those needs. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for an administrative body to apply the discretion that is needed and which most of the voluntary organisations want. I accept that Barnardos and Mencap have argued for including the cost of disability within the maintenance requirement, but the Childrens Society, Gingerbread, the Law Society, the National Council of One-Parent Families, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Spastics Society and Step Family argue that it should not be included in the formula but that other provision should be made. I believe that the best approach is to provide for the formula to be operated by the Child Support Agency and for the courts then to be able to use
Column 543
their discretion. Having been relieved of the general duty to make orders regarding maintenance, the courts will, I believe, be able swiftly and efficiently to cope with the duty that we are now placing on them.Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made : No. 101, in page 6, line 48, at end insert-- ( ) For the purposes of subsection (7), a child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, mental disorder or congenital deformity or such other disability as may be prescribed.'. No. 21, in page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (9).-- [Mr. Scott.]
Clause 12
Child support officers
Mr. Jack : I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 23.
Rev. Martin Smyth : May I take this opportunity to ask for clarification. As the Minister nodded when he sat down, I take that to mean that autistic children are included in the definition in Government amendment No. 101.
However, I should like some clarification. I appreciate the reason why Government amendment No. 22 has been tabled, but what is the thinking behind Government amendment No. 23? Does it refer to the child support officer for the United Kingdom, or will there be a separate officer for Northern Ireland? Why has the responsibility been placed specifically on the shoulders of the chief child support officer in Northern Ireland for any omissions or for any problems affecting child support officers there? I am not sure what it means and I should like some clarification.
Mr. Jack : Government amendment No. 23 is designed to ensure that proceedings such as those for judicial review are brought against the chief child support officer in Great Britain where the relevant child support officer who made the assessment or other relevant decision resides in Northern Ireland but is dealing with cases from Great Britain. Otherwise, there might be difficulties for clients of the Child Support Agency in bringing cases where their case had been dealt with by the child support centre in Belfast. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the clarification that he requires. Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made : No. 23, in page 9, line 12, at end insert-- (7) Any proceedings (other than for an offence) in respect of any act or omission of a child support officer which, apart from this subsection, would fall to be brought against a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead be brought against the Chief Child Support Officer.
(8) For the purposes of any proceedings brought by virtue of subsection (7), the acts or omissions of the child support officer shall be treated as the acts or omissions of the Chief Child Support Officer.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Column 544
Clause 13
Information required by Secretary of State
Amendments made : No. 24, in page 9, line 17, after application', insert,
or needed in connection with the collection or enforcement of child support or other maintenance under this Act'.
No. 25, in page 9, line 18, leave out
person as may be prescribed',
and insert
persons as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Mr. Jack : I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 9, line 22, after may', insert -(a)'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 27.
Mr. Jack : To avoid a lack of clarification, the amendment would allow information collected for the purposes of the benefit Acts to be used for purposes of child support legislation in Northern Ireland.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made : No. 27 in page 9, line 22, at end insert ; or
(b) disclose it to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for purposes of any enactment corresponding to this Act and having effect with respect to Northern Ireland.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 14
Powers of inspectors
Amendment proposed : No. 28, in page 10, line 3, leave out from question' to end of line 5 and insert
any person aged 18 or over whom he finds on the premises.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Mr. Allen : The amendment removes the phrase about inspectors interviewing people in the presence of someone else. Why?
Mr. Jack : It is merely to protect the interests of the child by restricting an inspector in the interviewing or questioning of a child.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16
Reviews on change of circumstances
Amendment made : No. 27, in page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (7).-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 17
Reviews of decisions of child support officers
Amendments made : No. 30, in page 12, line 22, leave out under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'.
No. 31, in page 12, line 26, leave out
under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
6.15 pm
The Solicitor-General : I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to that', in line 33, and insert-- (5) An application under this section shall give the applicant's reasons (in writing) for making it.
Column 545
(6) The Secretary of State shall refer to a child support officer any application under this section which is duly made ; and the child support officer shall conduct the review applied for unless in his opinion there are no reasonable grounds for supposing'.Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.
The Solicitor-General : Government amendment No. 32 removes the requirement for applicants for a clause 17 review to have to state which of a specific list of grounds for review applies to their request. Instead, they will merely have to state in writing their reasons for requesting a review. That fulfils the commitment made by the Lord Chancellor to Lord Russell to remove the requirement for an applicant to make such a specification. There are no cost implications.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made : No. 33, in page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (11).-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 18
Reviews at instigation of child support officers
Amendment made : No. 34, in page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (4).-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 19
Appeals
Amendments made : No. 35, in page 13, line 41, after officer', insert--
(a)'.
No. 36, in page 13, line 41, after 17', insert--
(b) to refuse an application for such a review,'.
No. 37, in page 13, line 42, leave out from decision' to end of line 46.
No. 38, in page 14, line 1, after of', insert the chairman of'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 23
Appeal to Child Support Commissioner
Amendment made : No. 39, in page 15, line 25, leave out the ground that the decision was wrong in'
and insert a question of'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 24
Appeal from Child Support Commissioner on question of law
Amendments made : No. 40, in page 16, line 31, leave out from who' to was' in line 35.
No. 41, in page 16, line 36, after decision', insert or appeal decision'.
No. 42, in page 16, line 45, at end insert
; and
"original decision" means the decision to which the appeal decision in question relates'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Column 546
Clause 26
Reference to court for declaration of parentage
Amendment made : No. 43, in page 18, line 29 [ Clause 26 ], leave out
satisfied that the case does not fall'
and insert
not satisfied that the case falls'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 27
Power of Secretary of State to initiate or defend actions of declarator : Scotland
Amendment made : No. 82, in page 19, line 9 leave out
satisfied that the case does not fall'
and insert
not satisfied that the case falls'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Clause 28
Collection of child support maintenance
The Solicitor-General : I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 19, line 19 leave out
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to'
and insert
The Secretary of State may'.
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Mr. Allen : It is not purely a drafting amendment. Will the Minister say why the amendment waters down the Secretary of State's duty to collect maintenance payments, and what are the existing and continuing criteria on which the Secretary of State will collect such payments?
The Solicitor-General : It is a drafting amendment. As drafted, the clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to collect maintenance whenever a maintenance assessment has been made. That is not the policy intention. Our preference is for the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement between themselves--I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of that--on the arrangement for the payment of maintenance rather than for the agency to have to intervene. In the case of a mandatory application under clause 6, we would need to be sure that any such private arrangement was secure. In the case of a voluntary application under clause 4, it would be up to the party involved whether the agency was to become involved in the collection of maintenance. In that sense, it is a drafting amendment which will give effect to what I am sure everyone will agree is the right policy.
Amendment agreed to.
Miss Emma Nicholson : I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 20, line 8 at end add--
(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State in circumstances where the amount of family credit or any another benefit of prescribed kind paid to the person with the care of the child or children has been calculated on the basis that the absent parent is not paying any child support maintenance.'.
Clause 28 is very important in considering the way in which children will be supported. I tabled the probing amendment in order to ask the Secretary of State to consider more carefully the ways in which maintenance will be paid when the absent parent pays no child support maintenance. The amendment is self-explanatory and I am
Column 547
confident that the Minister will give me a full reply. He will know that I am especially concerned about cases in which the absent parent has not been forced to pay any child maintenance, and I ask him to make regulations to provide for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State. I should be grateful for a full reply, but my hon. Friend will understand that this is a probing amendment.Mr. Allen : The people who are dealt with in this clause are on very low incomes such as those on income support. A lone parent with a child under 11 years of age will be on a weekly income of £65.40. When one is trying to exist on such a low income, one's main concern is the security of that income. Any variation in that income is the difference between being able to pay a bill or not, between being able to buy a pair of shoes for a child or not, or to buy food for oneself or for the child. The amendment is extremely helpful, which is why we support the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) in her efforts to get an answer from the Minister. Currently, in nearly a quarter of cases in which maintenance is relevant, the Department pays lone parents income support gross, and collects maintenance. That guarantees the parents security of income when maintenance is irregular or fluctuating, as it often is. The Government accept that important principle, but at present it applies only in respect of income support. The amendment would extend similar arrangements to parents with care who are attempting to enter the labour market.
Such a move would ensure that the Government's work incentives would not be undermined by the risk of insecurity of income preventing parents with care, or their partners, from contemplating entering paid employment for 16 hours a week or more, even with the help of family credit or disability working allowance.
The Minister may not wish to accept the amendment in its current form, but he would help such people greatly by accepting that a problem exists and that it could be tackled by means of a similar amendment.
| Next Section
| Home Page |