Previous Section Home Page

Column 664

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Wells, Bowen

Column 664

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr David Willetts.

Column 664

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 5, line 23, leave out `such a' and insert `a departure'.

No. 14, in page 5, line 30, leave out `the proposed' and insert `a departure'.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Schedule 2

Departure Directions: The Cases and Controls

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 26, line 8, leave out `the commitment was' and insert `they were'.

No. 28, in page 26, line 19, after `and' insert `either'. No. 29, in page 26, line 20, after `made' insert

`or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made'.

No. 30, in page 26, line 21, leave out `between them'. No. 31, in page 26, line 21, after `kind' insert

`between the absent parent and any of those persons'.

No. 32, in page 26, line 23, leave out `made between them'. No. 33, in page 26, line 27, leave out `is' and insert `was'. No. 34, in page 26, line 38, at end insert--

`.--(1) A departure direction may be given if--

(a) before 5th April 1993--

(i) a court order of a prescribed kind was in force with respect to the absent parent and either the person with care with respect to whom the current assessment was made or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made; or (ii) an agreement of a prescribed kind between the absent parent and any of those persons was in force;

(b) in pursuance of the court order or agreement, the absent parent has made one or more transfers of property of a prescribed kind;

(c) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of maintenance was not reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers; (d) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of child support maintenance under the current assessment has been reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers, in accordance with provisions of or made under this Act; and

(e) it is nevertheless inappropriate, having regard to the purposes for which the transfer or transfers was or were made, for that reduction to have been made.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c), "maintenance" means periodical payments of maintenance made (otherwise than under this Act) with respect to the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom the current assessment was made.'.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Column 665

Clause 8

Appeals

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 10

The child maintenance bonus

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 9, line 19, after `treating' insert `the whole or'.

No. 17, in page 9, line 26, after `paid' insert

`in such circumstances as may be prescribed'.

No. 18, in page 9, line 26, leave out `entitled to the bonus' and insert

`who is or had been in receipt of child maintenance'.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 12

Reviews on change of circumstances

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 11, line 6, after `subsection (6)' insert `--

(a)'.

No. 20, in page 11, line 7, at end insert--

`(b) after "maintenance assessment" insert "by reference to the circumstances of the case as at the date of the application under this section" '.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 14

Cancellation of maintenance assessments on review

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 11, line 28, leave out from first `the' to end of line 30 and insert

`maintenance assessment in question was not validly made he may cancel it with effect from the date on which it took effect." `.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 19

Non-referral of applications for maintenance assessments

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 15, line 14, after `shall' insert `subject to subsection (1B)'.

No. 23, in page 15, line 15, leave out from beginning to `shall', in line 17 and insert--

`(1B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that subsection (10) of section 4 would not have prevented the person with care concerned from making an application for a maintenance assessment under that section he shall--

(a) notify her of the effect of this subsection, and

(b) if, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice was sent to her, she asks him to do so, treat the application as having been made not under section 6 but under section 4.

(1C) Where the application is not preserved under subsection (1B) (and so is treated as not having been made) the Secretary of State'.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 21

Fees for scientific tests

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 22, leave out from `made' to `is', in line 24, and insert `or a maintenance assessment'.

Column 666

Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to recover from alleged parents those fees for DNA tests which the Secretary of State previously paid in connection with a paternity dispute. The amendment fulfils a commitment that I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) in Committee, and allows recovery to be made in cases where benefit is not an issue as well as in benefit cases. In relation to paternity, Opposition Members suggested that we should introduce a presumption of parentage on marriage in disputed paternity cases in England and Wales, similar to that which applies in Scotland. They also moved an amendment so that a declaration of parentage by the courts would have effect for any other proceedings involving the qualifying child.

On the face of it, both those proposals have merit, but the implications are far reaching and could affect other areas of law, such as adoption and surrogacy, registration of births, parental responsibility, immigration and residence and contact issues. These matters will need to be fully considered by several Departments. The Lord Chancellor has general policy responsibility for family law issues, and I am pleased to say that he has agreed to take forward a consultation exercise on both those matters. Such an exercise may involve public consultation, and could clearly not be concluded in time for any changes in the law to be introduced in the current Bill. However, it will establish the need for and the desirability of making the changes suggested by Opposition Members as and when the opportunity arises. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to our amendments in Committee. They recognised that there may be a need for wider consultation not only within Departments but with the wider public. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has now got agreement through the Lord Chancellor for such a procedure to be undertaken. We shall give our views during that process, and we look forward to any subsequent amendments or changes in the legislation that may be appropriate as a result of the consultation. We welcome the Minister's statement.

Amendment agreed to .

Clause 26

Regulations and orders

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 22, leave out from beginning to `order' in line 23 and insert--

`(4) Subsection (4A) applies to--

(a) the first regulations made under section 10;

(b) any order made under section 18(5);

(c) the first regulations made under section 24.

(4A) No regulations or order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations or'.- - [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Schedule 3

Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 27, line 38, at end insert-- ` "(ae) compensation payments made under regulations under section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 or under any corresponding enactment having effect with respect to Northern Ireland;" '.

Column 667

No. 36, in page 29, line 30, after `insert' insert `28C(2)(b), 28F(3)'.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Order for Third Reading read.

8.19 pm

Mr. Lilley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am delighted to move the Third Reading, for a number of reasons. First, my officials inform me that this marks the 25th occasion that I have had the opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)--not a moment too many. None the less, despite it being the 25th such occasion, it is my maiden Third Reading speech. I have looked it up to see what is required, and I see that brevity can be of the essence. One of my predecessors managed it in two sentences. However, I have been told that I have a moment or two longer than that.

I want to use the opportunity to congratulate the Committee on the Bill's smooth passage, which reflects the cross-party support for the basic principles that underlie it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for fulfilling his promise that there would be no trench warfare because he wanted the improvements made by the Bill as much as we did.

As a non-participant, I can objectively praise the whole Committee: the Chairmen--the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks)--and the constructive contributions from Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), and especially those from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).

Above all, I have to thank my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for taking the Bill through, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). If any one hon. Member has gained in credit, standing and esteem on both sides of the House from this fraught and rather difficult subject, it is my hon. Friend; I am immensely grateful to him for all he has done, both in the context of the Bill and before that.

I wish that I could extend my thanks and congratulations to the Liberal party, too. Despite the great personal charm of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I am afraid that I cannot, because she has associated her party with some of the nastiest elements in British politics, and, in proposing to overthrow the Child Support Agency, has actively sought the support of the Network Against the Child Support Act and people like that. They have returned that support with delight.

I have here NACSA's latest report, which states:

"There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are delighted with the sudden input of support for their party from NACSA supporters. Campaigners in many areas"--

that is, NACSA campaigners--

"helped them during the council elections. Word from Lib Dem HQ and the ecstatic Liz Lynne is that they have already had a foot high stack of support pledges from NACSA supporters."

These are people who, a page or two later, advise people to lie and to harass. They say:

"Around 150 NACSA stalwarts turned out at Brierley Hill to harass the life out of the inmates of Dudley CSAC."

Column 668

The report goes on to say:

"You should try and get hold of copies of the CSA business plan. Order one for yourself. Don't say you're from NACSA or whatever, try saying something like you are a welfare rights adviser. You might have better luck."

I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale if she wants to disassociate herself and her party from those undesirable people. However, she does not; she stands, or rather sits, condemned as a result.

I shall deal now with the basic approach of the Bill. We identified the key problem that we have faced since introducing it, and the main area of legitimate concern, as the failure to take into account fully in the formula the impact of past property settlements. That could not be permanently resolved through a formula system, although we have introduced the broad-brush approach to deal with it in the immediate future. It needed the opportunity to depart from the formula system, and that is how we decided to proceed. Primary legislation was necessary, which enabled us to introduce the departure system, and therefore to tackle a limited range of other problems which could not be covered through the formula system itself.

I welcome the fact that the official Opposition have not tried to widen the gateways too far, which would give people departures from the formula. As primary legislation was necessary, we were able also to tackle the take-on of non-benefit cases where there was a past property settlement, and to introduce the child maintenance bonus. However, the Bill has to be seen as complementary to the secondary legislative changes which we introduced: the broad-brush element in the formula dealing with past property settlements and with travel to work; the changes dealing with housing costs where there were second families; and compensation for family credit and disability working allowance losers as a result of changes elsewhere in the formula. The most important single change introduced by secondary legislation was the 30 per cent. cap on the net income which could be taken by maintenance out of people's net income.

Those changes came in at the beginning of April, over the Easter weekend. They were introduced and implemented in a very few days. The whole operation was virtually hitch-free, and I congratulate the agency on carrying it out so smoothly. It was a massive achievement. It meant major information technology changes in the whole computer system; it meant examining some 1.25 million cases that are stored on the computer system; and it meant contacting some 675,000 customers of the agency.

As a result, about a third of those who have assessments have had their payments reduced by, on average, about £8 a week, or roughly £400 a year. Some have had reductions of as much as £22 a week as a result of the changes.

The two main causes of reduction in numerical terms are the 30 per cent. rule and the shared housing cost, spreading the cost of housing of all members of second households in a way that was not previously done by the formula.

The agency has notified everyone who might be affected that they can seek changes through the formula to reflect past property settlements or travel- to-work arrangements. So far, it has been rather underwhelmed by the response. By early May, there had been some 13,000 requests for such recognition in the formula for either property or travel-to-work expenses. Such applications have to be in by

Column 669

18 July, three months after the change was introduced. There is a continual stream coming in, and I reiterate that we welcome those applications up to 18 July.

The other issue which is complementary to the primary and secondary legislation is the improvement in the agency's performance, partly as a result of regulatory changes enabling it to operate more smoothly. The success in introducing the April changes is reassuring. It was, as I say, a major change, and not everyone would have backed with their shirt the certainty of it all working out as well as it did. I hope that hon. Members are also seeing a steady improvement in the service provided by the agency to them and their constituents. Certainly we have had far fewer complaints to the agency, far speedier replies have been going out to hon. Members, and there has been a four fifths reduction in the number of queries via the direct line compared with the peak.

I hope that the overall package of reforms that we have introduced-- administrative reforms, regulatory reforms and primary legislative reforms- -are working out properly. I believe that it was necessary and right to introduce them all. They have been well received outside, as well as inside, the House. The changes, I believe, have smoothed many of the rough edges which were identified in the first 18 months of experience of the agency.

The changes will mean that those with a genuine grievance will be able to seek departure from the formula. As a result, I hope that the formula used and the assessments made by the agency will be seen to be fairer, and that it will therefore be possible to obtain greater compliance with those assessments, which will be better for the parents with care, and for the taxpayer.

Overall, I believe that the changes will benefit children, parents and taxpayers, and I commend the Bill to the House.

8.30 pm

Next Section

  Home Page