| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swayne: One of the problems that we examined in Committee was the fear that there would be a growing number of variations as a consequence of the simplicity of the new formula. Would not the addition of new clause 27 provide a powerful incentive for the Government to keep up the pressure by means of a performance measure?
Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is half right. As he says, the new clause would provide a sensible performance measure and it would be helpful in that respect. However, as my hon. Friend said most powerfully in Committee, the demand for additional variations will not come from within the CSA or from the House; it is more likely to result from public disquiet and unhappiness. In a reasonable world, the new clause might operate as a check on the Government but, as we sought to demonstrate, it would at least provide an early warning of what might go wrong, and that is desirable.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was about to don a hair shirt and apologise, so I shall do so now. We made a mistake when we made changes to the CSA. Although we introduced lots of departures and variations--
depending on whether one reads the Bill or the Act--and that was sensible, we retained a fairly complex system of assessment. The Government propose a simplified, three-band system of assessment and we support that, but they also intend to reduce the number of variations. That cannot be sensible. It is a mirror image of the mistake that we made. There should be a simplified system of assessment, but a greater number of variations than the Government propose. That would temper the rough justice that the Government would otherwise impose.
I have received a transcript of a talk given by Mr. Nicholas Mostyn QC--
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley):
Not him again.
Mr. Pickles:
I have no doubt that Mr. Mostyn--one of the country's leading family law Queen's counsels--will be most gratified to receive that accolade of "Not him again".
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
Same old stuff.
Mr. Pickles:
Mr. Mostyn's speech was given, to Manches and Co., on 7 March 2000, and is therefore quite recent. The Minister therefore cannot say that it is the same old stuff. It is new stuff, and he should pay some attention. [Interruption.] We will come to that in a few moments. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to be doing the knitting by the tumbrels. The Bill is about ensuring that there is maintenance for children, not about redistribution of wealth. I think that the Under-Secretary had better contain herself a little.
Nicholas Mostyn said:
Labour Members--in their "not him again" mode--will perhaps want to hear something more to their taste. In "Children First: Reforming Child Support", published in October 1996, just a few months before the Government's general election victory, they talked about
The new clause seeks to ensure that, if people are aggrieved, they do not have to wait a month to receive a reply. It would provide a way of ensuring that matters are dealt with. I do not know why the Minister of State should be so unhappy about that. The new clause will make the whole system run better. I do not see why the Government are getting themselves all upset about it.
When we were debating the Bill in Committee, if anything made the Government more likely to accept a proposal, it was the idea that it would improve administrative convenience. The new clause is all about administrative convenience. The new clause will implement Labour's intention, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Field:
Reading new clause 27, I thought that I agreed with it. However, after listening to the speech of
I hope that, after we have meandered through our debate, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause--which in good nature and good faith could be considered in another place. I suggest that, if the proposal is not voted on today, but is considered in another place, we might consider creating a statutory requirement that maintenance payments should occur only after the errors have been put right. The hon. Gentleman is lucky in that he has only one person staggering in per surgery to complain. In Birkenhead, there are four of five people with shopping bags full of papers from the CSA. There may be cases where an individual has done all in his power to present the proper information, and it is found, much later, that the CSA has made a miscalculation or an error in computing maintenance, and the new maintenance bill, taking into account that error, is backdated to the period when the error was discovered and then presented to my constituent. In those circumstances, it is proper for taxpayers to meet the bill, and not individual constituents.
Mr. Andrew George:
I welcome the spirit of the new clause. It is reasonable to introduce targets and appropriate compensation, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out. Clearly, his surgeries mirror my own. This is the area that has caused the most frustration and difficulty for constituents and Members of Parliament.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the time period for targets, but there is a question mark over the point at which the target period effectively kicks in; in other words, when it can be agreed that all the evidence required by the CSA has been received, as that is often a cause of debate between the CSA and the client.
Mr. Field:
I was not arguing that so much. In circumstances where a constituent receives a letter stating that the CSA has discovered that, two years ago, it made a mistake in computing the maintenance, and presenting the constituent with the back payment that he owes, we want the Bill to ensure that our constituent does not pick up the bill and that the CSA does.
Mr. George:
I was making a point in addition to that point, with which I entirely agree. The backdating claims, and the resulting heavy burden upon many constituents as a result of errors made by the CSA, are pertinent points. These lie alongside the arguments made effectively by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Whether the hon. Gentleman seeks to push the new clause to a vote, or seeks simply to probe the matter, he will find strong support from my party.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury):
When I was first elected, a great many people came to my surgeries to
In view of that, I hope that we are not being premature with some of the changes that we are making in the Bill, which undoubtedly creates a system of rough justice. Many changes in the Bill are to be welcomed, but we may come to regret creating such a system.
Mr. Swayne:
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the targets set out in the new clause are not necessary because the administrative situation has improved so much? If that is so, is the Bill necessary at all?
Mr. Robertson:
I am not quite saying that, but my hon. Friend's question leads to an interesting point. I hope that I may test your patience slightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by drawing an analogy--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It occurred to me that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was directing the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) more accurately to the substance of the amendment than his own opening remarks suggested. I allowed the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman some licence to put the background to the new clause, but I cannot allow the same licence to other hon. Members.
Mr. Robertson:
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your guidance, and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I had not appreciated how helpful he was being.
Mr. Swayne:
I am here to help.
Mr. Robertson:
In view of that advice, I shall turn straight to the detail of new clause 27.
5.15 pm
It seems to me if you are going to make the formula more simple you must make your departures wider. You can't make the formula more arbitrary and then cut down the grounds on which you seek departure.
That seems to be a very fair assessment.
increasing the grounds on which an appeal can be made to include complaints not only against assessment itself, but against failures in the administrative process that led to it.
New clause 27 would achieve precisely that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |