| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Burns: Does the Minister agree that, if absent parents had the opportunity to go to court to try their luck at minimising their child maintenance, many of them would take it, because they would have nothing to lose by doing so?
Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I agreed with most of his speech. It is hard to argue that the courts have a good history of dealing with such cases--even the Liberal Democrats have not tried to do that. The courts have an ignoble history in the protection of children in divorce cases. As many people know only too well, the former court system was discretionary and unfair. It left children in poverty and let non-resident parents off the hook.
That is why the House chose to move to an administrative system to deal with those issues. Since then, the number of people applying for maintenance
through the CSA has continued to rise. The agency has become more effective, although we realise that there are inherent design problems in the maintenance system that the House has asked it to administer. That is why we introduced the Bill, which will radically simplify the formula.
It is ridiculous to think that we could go back to the court system and that it would be effective--I suspect that Conservative Members would agree. I remain astonished that the Liberal Democrats do not realise that basic fact.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said that the amendment was a probing one. To delete the whole of clause 2 is a funny way to probe. The amendment would destroy one of the main provisions of the Bill, which would allow people access to the CSA and its services if they found themselves in difficulty with maintenance payments.
The Liberal Democrats seemed to have three concerns about our suggested system. The first was that it would allow the CSA to take on new court order cases that had been made at least 12 months after the new child support system was introduced, and that it would be swamped thereby. Last year, 8,100 new court orders involving child maintenance were made. The CSA's annual take on cases is 350,000, so if 8,000 can swamp 350,000, the Liberal Democrats have an odd view of mathematics.
The second Liberal Democrat argument was that allowing parents with court orders to use the CSA for a simple and predictable child support calculation would encourage parents to be unco-operative. That argument is difficult to follow, because, since the launch of the CSA in April 1993, courts can make orders for child maintenance only when parents have consented to a written maintenance agreement. That consent must exist before the court can make an order. If new facts subsequently come to light, or the payment arrangements break down, why should a parent not be given the choice of returning to court for the order to be varied or revoked, or of applying to the CSA for a child support maintenance calculation? There is no reason why that should not occur.
Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats argued that it would be perverse to unravel satisfactory arrangements and that to do so would be detrimental to children. However, leaving access to the CSA open would not have that effect. Only parents who were dissatisfied with existing arrangements would apply.
Our proposal would ensure that maintenance is right for children. Putting the interests of children first has led us down the road of reform of the CSA. Indeed, that created the CSA, even if the agency was not set up in the most appropriate and effective way. We learned as we went along how the administration of the system can be improved. Children will benefit from the provisions in clause 2. The provisions will give parents with court orders the choice between sticking with their existing maintenance arrangements, or asking the CSA to step in.
There is also considerable movement on and off benefit. A case that is private on one day can have a taxpayer interest on the next--10 per cent. of people a year move on and off income support and would qualify. Creating a system that deals with children more evenly must be a good way forward. That means that, when the circumstances of parents with care change, there will not be large differences in the maintenance that they can expect to receive.
The Liberal Democrats have not even remotely made a case for returning to the courts system. I hope that the House will take a sensible, realistic and hard-headed approach and vote against the amendments.
Mr. Andrew George:
I guess from the Minister's response that she is not terribly enamoured of our amendment.
We have had a reasonable airing of the arguments. Although some hon. Members did not appreciate the seriousness of this very important matter, it is appropriate on Report at least to reflect on the fact that we are missing an opportunity to allow the court welfare system to operate.
Having listened to the arguments and taken all things into account, and on balance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Rooker:
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 23, leave out from "11," to end of line 26 and insert--
I shall be brief, and I hope that the House accepts that. Amendment 36 relates to applications for a variation from the normal rules by which child support maintenance will be calculated. It amends the wording of sub-section (5) of section 28F.
Where a variation application is made before a final decision has been reached on the original maintenance application, the Secretary of State will, whenever possible, take the outcome of the variation application into account in reaching his decision on the maintenance application. Where, for whatever reason, he cannot immediately resolve the variation application, he will make an interim maintenance decision under section 12(2).
The amendment provides that, once the final decision has been made, any appeal against such an interim decision will normally lapse. That serves to simplify an otherwise quite complex and ludicrous process, under which an appeal would have proceeded against a decision that had subsequently been replaced.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Andrew George:
I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 88, line 16, leave out subsection (4), and insert--
The purpose of the amendment is entirely serious: to clarify the definition of "disability". Under applications for a variation of provisions in schedule 2, the Secretary of State is oddly left to define "disability". Although it is conceivable that the Secretary of State may need discretion over defining "illness" and "long-term", we have in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, under which a commission is to be set up, a firm definition of "disability". Section 1 states:
The second reason is ideological, and I would have thought the Labour Government would approve of it. The Government have committed themselves to civil rights and equality of opportunity, for which I applaud them. In this instance, however, they are leaving aside an important piece of civil rights legislation. That undermines the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government's wider aims of social inclusion.
I therefore ask the Minister at least to acknowledge the fact that there is legislation that provides a more helpful definition of "disability". The Secretary of State could be left with some discretion over the terms "long-term" and "illness".
Angela Eagle:
I hope to persuade the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) of the fact that the Bill applies a reasonable definition of "disability", and to explain to him why we do not think that it is appropriate that the definition suggested in the amendment should apply in such circumstances.
Amendment No. 79 relates to the provision under which the Secretary of State may agree to vary the normal child support maintenance calculations on the ground that a non-resident parent is incurring costs attributable to the long-term illness or disability of a child who lives with him as a member of the second family. That is the sole reason why we need a definition in this context.
The provision, and the associated definitions of "disability" and "long-term", are features of the departures scheme, which was introduced by the Opposition when in government in December 1996. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the amendment would re-define "disability" by reference to section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In considering a variation on such a ground, the Secretary of State will be concerned with the costs associated with any disability. Given that there is already a benefit that is dedicated to helping disabled people with the extra costs that they may have to meet--disability living allowance--we propose to provide in regulations that a child will be considered "disabled" if either the care component, the mobility component or both components
of DLA are in payment to any person on his behalf, or if he is registered blind. The same qualifying conditions apply to awards of the disabled child premium in income support. That creates consistency across the range of benefits, which is important for administrative purposes.
'and except in prescribed circumstances any appeal connected with it (under section 20) shall lapse.'.
'(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b)--
(a) "illness" may have such meaning as may be prescribed; and
(b) "disability" shall have the same meaning as in Section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
There are two main arguments for the amendment, on which I can be brief because they are self-explanatory. The first is an administrative argument. The Disability Discrimination Act must be used. If the Government do not get into the habit of using it where they should do so, its worth will be devalued and it will not automatically be referred to as a benchmark.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |