---

Column 557

the principle that the absent parent should help to maintain the child, we want to amend the Bill to provide additional safeguards to mothers and their children.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are intended to ensure that the benefit penalty would be applied only after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against it or after an unsuccessful appeal. That is very important. In other words, the benefit penalty should be used as a last resort after all hearings, including appeals, have been completed. That seems only fair. In view of the evidence that I have referred to from the NACAB--and I could have spent much longer referring to other cases--I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.

In Committee the Minister said that a parent with care who refused to co- operate and who did not seem to have reasonable grounds for non-co- operation would have six weeks to change her mind. After that time had elapsed, the case would be referred to a second child support officer who would notify the mother in writing of a further period in which to change her mind. That would probably be about two weeks. If the mother continued to feel unable to co-operate and failed to persuade the child support officer that she had good cause, the benefit penalty would be imposed immediately. Only then could she appeal to a child support tribunal. That seems less than fair. In fact, it could cause real harm to the child because of the effect on the family's income.

It is important that the agency treats lone parents and non-resident parents fairly and in a similar way. It seems quite illogical and unjust that, where there is a paternity dispute, no maintenance assessment will be made until after the case has been heard by the courts. However, the same principle would not apply to the lone parent with care who may find the benefit reduced before appeal to the tribunal. The fact of granting an appeal takes for granted the fact that she might win the appeal. Why should she be deprived of benefit in the meantime?

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the way in which that issue is handled in the Australian maintenance system which the Government have used as a model for the system that underlies this Bill. In Australia the benefit penalty is not brought to bear until after the appeal process is completed. In 1988-89 there were just eight cancellations of benefit and in 1989-90 there were 35. That seems a much fairer system.

There is also a parallel within our legislation. Since April of this year, any unemployed person receiving benefit and challenging an application for voluntary unemployment deduction made by the state on the ground that he or she is capable of work continues to be paid at the normal level until after the appeal. Why are we harsher on children and lone parents when that system applies to the unemployed? Within the Bill there is a proposal that no maintenance assessment will be made in cases involving disputed paternity until paternity is proven.

It is important that any new system that could threaten the economic well- being of a family should be seen to be fair. We believe that there is a strong case for testing decisions on appeal, before they are carried out, on the grounds of natural justice. There is an inconsistency in the way in which we deal with many aspects of benefit. I can envisage a situation in which many mothers and their children will suffer in the short term who, in the longer term, will not have the penalty clause applied. It is essential that no reduction should take place when there is uncertainty about the mother's ability to co-operate.

---

Column 558

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those points. In addition, we should bear in mind the fact that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to save the Treasury money. Child support officers will therefore be working within strict targets for levels of maintenance collection. The resulting harm to lone parents and especially their children cannot possibly be justified in those circumstances. Lone parents have told me in my advice surgeries that they have already been told that they will lose benefit if they do not name the father--and that happened even before this Bill entered Committee. That problem is not confined to my area. Organisations such as NACAB and the Child Poverty Action Group have gathered substantial evidence from many parts of the country to show what is happening.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to ensure that a benefit penalty cannot be repeated simply because a parent with care moves from one benefit to another--for example, if a mother moves from income support to family credit or disability working allowance. It also covers circumstances in which a parent with care may have a break in a benefit claim and then moves back on to the same benefit.

In Committee the Secretary of State said that there was no intention of reapplying a further period of deduction to the same claim for the same benefit. However, that still leaves open the possibility of a repeat penalty in the kind of cases that I have just outlined. I thought that the Government wanted to encourage lone parents to seek work. Applying a second benefit penalty for parents with care, the majority of whom will be lone parents trying to move to work and on to family credit or disability working allowance, can hardly be described as providing an incentive for that lone parent to return to work.

Research carried out by the DSS has shown that lone parents as a group often go into and out of work possibly more often than others and that is a result of their dual role as carers and workers. We are therefore talking about a significant number of people who could be affected by repeat penalties at the very time when they are trying desperately to achieve some measure of progress towards independence. As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said, the pay packet is a key to economic independence. Many young mothers are striving for that independence. As a result, many of them may feel a disincentive to look for work that involves 16 hours or more a week. I now give the House a couple of examples that have come to the attention of citizens' advice bureaux. In Derbyshire, a client who is divorced had a court order for the payment of £60 a week for her two sons. The husband paid irregularly. In the weeks when he defaulted, she received income support. When he paid, she was 10p over the limit. As a result, she was yo-yoing on and off income support. I ask the House to imagine what that meant in terms of budgeting and managing her family income. In Yorkshire, a client's family credit book had been delayed. She contacted the family credit unit, which said that she should have been notified and that she should put in a fresh claim and that it would be backdated. In the meantime, of course, she fell behind with all her bills.

7 pm

As the House knows, Opposition Members are concerned about the damaging effect that the legislation will have on children who are caught up in the process. This is not a Child Support Bill ; it is a Treasury support

---

Column 559

Bill. There is no incentive for a woman to name the father of her child. In fact, many who receive maintenance will lose their passported benefits. A repeat penalty will significantly worsen the effects of a benefit reduction. A parent with care who has already suffered an 18-month benefit penalty will have little money to meet her children's needs. I cannot see any justification for repeating the penalty just because she has had a break in a claim or has moved into work of 16 hours or more a week. That is a real worry. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is not the Government's intention and that he takes on board my criticisms of the application of the Bill, particularly the penalty clauses.

Mr. Jack : I could never accuse the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) of being uncharitable, but, in her comments about our intentions in respect of the Bill, she has perhaps done something that she did not intend to do. Ever since the Bill was introduced, we have made it abundantly clear that the interests of children--hence the name of our White Paper--come first. That means that we see in the measure the pre-eminence of the child. It is sad that the hon. Lady has not reflected on the fact that the Bill sorts out the most unsatisfactory present situation in which maintenance is a concern or, more important, is not even paid.

I can give the hon. Lady an assurance in respect of sensitivity. We share her anxiety on that matter, but I am disappointed--I can understand why she has her views--that she does not reflect on the fact that the Government have moved greatly in terms of the original benefit sanction as proposed in the White Paper. We have moved to reflect on the sensitivity of the human situation with which we are dealing--for example, our amendment, which was accepted in Committee, about the adoption of an onus of proof determined by the words "harm and undue distress".

The hon. Lady did not give any weight to the presumption to be believed on behalf of the parent with care when she explains the sometimes difficult and sensitive human circumstances which lead her to resist co-operating with the Bill. We have given an assurance that people will be presumed to be believed, but the hon. Lady knows that part of the reason why, under the present arrangements, people are sometimes frightened to co-operate is that they do not have reassurance of the kind that we shall introduce with the Bill. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to dismiss with an easy hand the thought that our people will not be properly trained to deal with sensitive matters and to give guidance, advice and counselling, as we said in Committee they would.

Mr. Hardy : No matter what the training may be, will the Minister deny that, if maintenance equals the amount that a lady is receiving in income support, she and her child will be worse off because she will lose the passported benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred? She will lose the value of the free school meal. Therefore, substantial numbers of children may have a less satisfactory diet than they currently enjoy.

Mr. Jack : If that is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of our proposals, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have failed to get the message across, so let me try again. We are talking about a benefit sanction, which, again, we have reduced to 20 per cent. of the adult rate-- it has nothing to do with the children's rate--of income support.

---

Column 560

We have softened our approach by having a cooling-off period and a period of structured reduction in benefit. The woman parent with care will still be on income support and have full access to the range of passported benefits associated with that benefit. The hon. Gentleman has not entirely caught up with our proper intent.

Mr. Allen : Will the Minister therefore take the final step in being flexible by ensuring that the penalty is not a flat rate sledgehammer which applies to all women who are fined for refusing to name the father but can be a graded approach such as that which operates in respect of other benefits?

Mr. Jack : The easiest way to deal with the problem is ultimately for the parent with care to reconsider her position--that is, precisely by giving a six-week cooling off period and a further two weeks before any benefit sanction would come into operation. We have given the parent with care the chance to end the benefit sanction with no tapers and no fancy frills if she chooses to co-operate. We believe that parents will, with the right guidance, be encouraged so to do.

I cannot accept the hon. Lady's argument that our system is draconian. She prays in aid Australia, but she has been a little selective in her information. Under the Australian system, somebody who ultimately decides not to co-operate does not have our reduction of benefit ; he or she loses the lot for ever and a day. If that is the Opposition's policy, I hope that everybody has taken note of their advocacy of the Australian system and their association with something that is clearly draconian compared with our much softer and more sensitive approach.

The hon. Lady discussed the shared costs of parenting. I owe her a reply on that point. Where the absent parent looks after the child for a substantial time, and when there are special weekends or time put aside, the absent parent will retain an appropriate proportion of the maintenance available. I assure the hon. Lady that we are giving careful thought to that matter. I hope that those words reassure her.

The hon. Lady asked me about consultation on the regulations. The Bill is not, effectively, a social security provision, but, out of courtesy, we are to put our regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee. Of course we shall consult as widely as we consulted in respect of replies to the White Paper. We want the benefit of the views of others.

The hon. Lady seems to be taking a typical Opposition approach, which is never to bring matters to a head and always to postpone them until the day after and the day after that. A decision must be made whether people regard the flow of maintenance or the child as the most important or whether they wish to stick to their principles. Our proposals give a woman the opportunity to end any sanctions straight away. We believe that, in our much softer and gentle approach, that stage should be reached rather than postponing the decision for ever and a day.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed : No. 5, in page 30, line 34, at end insert-- (12) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying circumstances in which the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction--

(a) for such shorter period as may appear to him to be appropriate ;

---

Column 561

(b) for such smaller amount as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.'.-- [Mr. Allen.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 113, Noes 268.

Division No. 223] [7.09 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, A. J.

Bellotti, David

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cox, Tom

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Fisher, Mark

Flannery, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Derek

Fraser, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Hardy, Peter

Haynes, Frank

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Janner, Greville

Johnston, Sir Russell

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kilfoyle, Peter

Leighton, Ron

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McCartney, Ian

Macdonald, Calum A.

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McMaster, Gordon

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

O'Hara, Edward

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Randall, Stuart

Redmond, Martin

Richardson, Jo

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ruddock, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Turner, Dennis

Wallace, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Winnick, David

Worthington, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Allason, Rupert

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Ashby, David

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Batiste, Spencer

Beggs, Roy

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

---