Clause
2
Objectives
of the
Commission
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 2, page 1, line 8, leave
out ‘objective is’ and insert ‘objectives
are’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in
clause 2, page 1, line 10, at end
insert—
‘and to
secure the payment of any arrears of child support maintenance
including sums owed pursuant to the Child Support Act 1991 prior to the
establishment of the
Commission.’.
No.
72, in
clause 2, page 1, line 10, at
end insert—
‘, and
to support these parents’ joint responsibility to ensure
financial support and, whenever possible, emotional support, having
regard to the welfare of the children affected by these
arrangements.’.
No.
56, in
clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave
out ‘objective is’ and insert ‘objectives
are’.
No. 78,
in
clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave
out
‘appropriate’.
No.
2, in
clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave
out ‘and’ and insert
‘;’.
No.
3, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at
end insert—
‘and
to secure payment of arrears owed pursuant to that
Act’.
No. 27,
in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at
end insert—
‘; and
to collect debts owed pursuant to that
Act’.
No. 85,
in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(2A) In the
application of the subsidiary objectives set out in subsection (2)
above, the Commission must have regard to the choices expressed by the
parent with care and the non-resident
parent.’.
No.
29, in
clause 2, page 1, line 19, at
end add—
‘(4) In pursuing
and having regard to its objectives, and in the exercise of its
functions, the Commission shall have regard to the welfare of any
children likely to be
affected.’.
Paul
Rowen:
Once more, there are a number of important points
in this string of amendments that both my party and the Conservative
Front Benchers wish to pursue. The first picks up on the same point
that we were debating just now—the issue of historic debt and
what to do about it. I remind the Minister of
the evidence on the historic debt position that was given by Janet
Allbeson on Tuesday. She said that it would be a tough job to collect
it, because a lot of historic debt is pretty flaky. As well as
processing new applications, one of the huge exercises that the
transition will entail will be bringing historic debt cases up to date
before a case is transferred. That will involve a lot of extra work. It
gives some indication of the tasks that the commission will face in
development.
Although
we have already debated historic debt, I want to focus on amendment No.
29. With your permission, Mr. Chope, I should like to press
it to a vote. Its purpose is one that was referred to in the evidence
on Tuesday. It would ensure that the commission would have regard to
the welfare of any children who are likely to be affected by its
decisions. Much of our debate has been about the effect of the
CSA’s failure to collect maintenance payments on a generation of
children. Given that we are making a new start, it is vital that the
Bill explicitly includes a commitment to ensuring that non-resident
parents pay their whack, so that child poverty is tackled. Things
should not continue to be as they were in the past, which rather
obscured some of the work of the CSA in reducing public expenditure
claims.
I know that
the Bill’s provisions will help to reduce child poverty.
However, we need to make it clear that that objective is something that
we wish to pursue, and that we seek to recognise the clear relationship
between child poverty and maintenance. The figures in the Harker report
show that 42 per cent. of children in poverty are children who live in
lone-parent families. Only 32 per cent. of lone parents receive child
maintenance. The Government have so far missed their target of halving
child
poverty.
Stephen
Hesford (Wirral, West) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is
speaking chiefly to amendment No. 29 and is banging on about child
poverty. That amendment does not mention child poverty, and I do not
understand why. If the amendment is to achieve what he wants, why does
it not mention child
poverty?
Paul
Rowen:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the
amendment states that
“the Commission shall have regard
to the welfare of any
children.”
Most hon.
Members will accept that child poverty has been one of the key factors
affecting the welfare of many of the children concerned, and that is a
direct result of the CSA’s failure to ensure that maintenance
payments are made. One can say that the causes are wider, but child
poverty is clearly an issue and we need to deal with it. The Government
have already missed their target of halving child poverty by 2010, and
the most recent report on households below average income revealed once
again that the number of children living in poverty has increased in
the past 12
months.
Stephen
Hesford:
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have
missed their target for halving child poverty by 2010, but by my
reckoning we are still in 2007.
Paul
Rowen:
Yes, but as I explained, even if incremental moves
are made towards a target for the future, I do not expect that there
will be a sudden decrease in child poverty in the next three years,
unless something dramatic happens and the Prime Minister suddenly
announces a huge increase in expenditure for that. The fact is that the
number of children living in poverty has increased in the past 12
months, so rather than moving forward on that, the Government are
moving backwards, and that is an important point. It is important that
we are clear about what some of CMEC’s key objectives are, and
that dealing with the welfare of the child, in this case by ensuring
that maintenance is paid, is its prime purpose and should be on the
face of the
Bill.
Andrew
Selous:
This is a large group of amendments that covers a
range of issues, so I think that we are going to have a wide-ranging
debate. The debate that we just had focused on debt, and I agree with
the hon. Member for Rochdale that that is significant.
In brief response to what the
Minister said, I have just looked through clause 9 and cannot see the
word debt in it, and, of course, it does not appear within clause 2. I
cling to the view that, when push comes to shove, what is on the face
of the Bill will dictate the priorities, aims and objectives of a
Government agency or non-departmental public body, and that will be the
case with CMEC. Those things matter. I heard the Minister’s
reassurances on debt, but I would be more reassured if I could see
those in plain ink in the
Bill.
Amendment No. 72
harks back to a line of questioning that I adopted with the Minister
and Lord McKenzie of Luton—a close neighbour of mine in
Bedfordshire, as is my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid-Bedfordshire—in our first evidence session. You probably
would not allow me to repeat all of that, Mr. Chope, but I
shall give a brief summary, because we are starting a new organisation
and I was heartened by Lord McKenzie’s response. He
concluded:
“It
is certainly something that we are aiming to design into the
service.”——[Official Report, Child Maintenance
and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c.
16.]
I was genuinely pleased to
hear the Minister’s colleague in the other place say that.
However, I cling to the view that unless there is a core, operational
shift in the CSA’s culture in respect of how it will treat
separated families in the round, CMEC will not achieve the financial
objectives that we want it to achieve. There is a human side to what it
does; it is not just a matter of a mechanical, financial
calculation.
2.15
pm
I will mention
Australia again, as I went there in the last Parliament with the Select
Committee. I sat down with some of the operatives in the organisation
there, saw the computer system and talked to the senior staff. For a
number of years, that organisation has provided practical support to
separated parents, because it has the clear, simple view that where
such support is safe and appropriate—those are vital
safeguards—that approach makes sense and improves the overall
welfare of children. It also helps to ensure that the money gets
through week by week, which is, rightly, the Bill’s central
objective.
I do not understand why there is
nothing in the Bill about emotional support as well as financial
support, because that would help distance parenting to happen in a
practical way and help to achieve the culture change that we keep
talking about. I was very struck in our second sitting by the comment
of Janet Allbeson of One Parent Families, who
said:
“Well,
lone parents have said to us: ‘We want more contact. Why does he
not get more involved?’ There is a sort of consensus that, if
non-resident parents can be more involved—providing it is safe,
of course—it has very good outcomes for
children.”——[Official Report, Child Maintenance
and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c.
67.]
The hon. Member
for Wirral, West chided the hon. Member for Rochdale about the phrase
“welfare of children” when we discussed an earlier
amendment, but I think that that is a good phrase. There can be poverty
of emotional support and in the lack of time that parents give to
one-to-one investment in their children, which can be every bit as
damaging as the lack of money provided week by week. I will not say any
more on that subject, as this is a rerun of a line of questioning that
was pursued in an earlier
sitting.
I will not
press amendment No. 78 to a Division, and I definitely do not want to
leave out the word “appropriate”—it is absolutely
vital and should be in the Bill— but tabling the amendment was
the only way in which I could secure a debate on the subject. I hope
that opprobrium will not rain down upon me from the Chair or the Clerk.
I want to tease out from the Minister what he means by
“appropriate”.
We all agree
that “appropriate” voluntary maintenance arrangements are
what we want, but it would be useful if the Minister were to say what
he means. Will a template with the CMEC percentages be given to couples
when they make their private, voluntary arrangements? And will it give
guidance on what is appropriate or say that anything that falls below
an indicated level is not
appropriate?
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree
that the words “and function” also need to be added in
order to provide greater clarity? The words need to be appropriate for
the circumstances, and ones that will
stick.
Andrew
Selous:
I agree. My hon. Friend heralds a debate that we
shall have slightly later this afternoon about the
stickability of private voluntary arrangements. It is an absolutely key
point, and it is still up in the air in our deliberations. I look
forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the use of
“appropriate”. I do not intend to press amendment No. 78
to a Division; I wanted merely to have the debate and to press the
Minister on the
matter.
Amendments
Nos. 2 and 3 relate to debt. I shall not explain at length why historic
debt is so important, given our general debate on the importance of
dealing with debt, the signals that it sends when it is not dealt with
and the good signals that it sends when it is dealt with. I cling to
the notion that, if something is really important, it should be in the
Bill.
The Bill is not
massively long, but it is not short, too—we have 78 pages before
us. Clause 2 on the objectives of the commission is the key clause in
the
Bill. When the pressure is really on, the members of the board of CMEC
will look at what Parliament has passed and, if the
words “to secure payment
of arrears owed pursuant to that
Act”
are not in the
clause, the Bill will not receive the priority that it should. I accept
the Minister’s intentions that the staff will be told to act in
that way, but I would be more reassured if the amendment were
accepted.
Mr.
Weir:
I had not intended to speak on this group of
amendments, but I have some worries about amendment No. 72, which the
hon. Gentleman has explained. The amendment goes to the heart of CMEC,
and whether CMEC can be both an adviser and an enforcer is something
that we took up in our evidence session. I agree with much of what he
said about the need for advice and support for children outwith
finance, but it worries me to link the two so
closely.
Andrew
Selous:
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. If he has had a
chance to look through the later amendments, he will see that they
reword some clauses in respect of the advice given in clause 5. My
amendments say not that the commission must provide the advice, but
that the advice must be provided—I have turned it from active to
passive. I recognise the issues that the hon. Gentleman is rightly
raising about whether CMEC would be the right body to take such action.
All I am saying is that such important action needs to be taken, but
not necessarily by
CMEC.
Mr.
Weir:
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument and
agree with him. Before entering the House, I was a solicitor. I dealt
with family law and, even for a solicitor, it is one of the most
difficult areas of law with which to be involved. In Scots law—I
am sure that this is the case in England—finance and other
issues are kept deliberately apart. All too often, a man would say,
“I’m paying for them, so I want to have contact with
them,” whether or not he had any real interest in having contact
with the children. He might suddenly want contact years after the
divorce or separation, when he had finally been caught by the CSA. That
is not necessarily in the best interests of the
children.
Alternatively,
the woman might say, “Well, he is not paying for them so I shall
not let him have contact.” Again, that is wrong, because the
child often needs contact with the parent. We must keep such matters
apart. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: if there is a proposal for a
separate organisation to give advice and assistance in other areas, I
am happy to support it, but CMEC is not the way to do it. I asked that
question in the evidence-taking session with Janet Allbeson.
I am concerned about how CMEC
can advise both parties in a break-up, because there is an inherent
conflict of interest. Whether or not the parent with care needs advice
on their rights or what they should be going for, the non-resident
parent also needs advice, but that is not covered properly
here.
Andrew
Selous:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should
not be linkage between maintenance and contact. Some people have called
for that, but I am
absolutely not calling for it, because the issues are separate. Contact
is rightly dealt with by the courts, and I do not want to link the two
things. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the front page of the Australian
CSA website, he will see that what I am talking about is right at the
heart of what the Australian CSA does as part of an Australian
Government Department. That site contains signposted information,
support and advice that is not part of the legal system. People can
ignore that if they want to, and it is not forced on anyone. So there
is a model of a CSA that has a much better reputation than ours and it
gives that information. We should be looking at
that.
Mr.
Weir:
I do not think that we deeply disagree about that,
but I wanted to make that
point.
Briefly, on
amendment No. 78 and the use of “appropriate” in relation
to minutes of agreement, I am also concerned that—as I
understood it as we took evidence—it was anticipated that
allowing couples to enter into a minute of agreement would allow a
situation to be addressed where, for example, one party would make over
the house or some other assets in lieu of regular child maintenance.
Just having a template and putting in the appropriate percentage would
undermine that, so we have to be careful. I appreciate that the detail
is not here, because we do not have the regulations, but will the
regulations specify an appropriate allowance to allow that sort of
thing to be done, so that there will not be, as has often been the case
with the CSA, a capital assessment and a capital agreement, perhaps in
lieu of child maintenance, that may subsequently be overturned? That
has caused a great many problems within
couples.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
We have had an interesting debate on a lengthy
group of amendments.
I
shall begin with amendment No. 29, tabled by the hon. Member for
Rochdale, who wants us to incorporate a new subsection (4) in clause 2.
Everything that he seeks to achieve—I understand why he wants to
do it—is wholly covered by clause 1, which could not state more
clearly the commission’s overriding objective, namely to
maximise the number of children for whom effective maintenance
arrangements are in place. Surely, that is at the heart of supporting
children’s welfare and addressing the challenge of further
reducing child poverty. The hon. Gentleman’s proposal only
elaborates on something that was already adequately contained in the
clause as drafted, and I am therefore not convinced that it is
necessary.
I turn now
to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire,
who is a great fan of the Australian system because he keeps citing it.
However, that system is unpopular with the Australian public. I do not
think that, in that sense, it claims any greater virtue than our
equally troubled CSA. He will know that, partly as a result of its
unpopularity, it, too, is undergoing massive reform with a view to the
introduction of a new child support system in Australia—funnily
enough in
2008.
Andrew
Selous:
I think that the Minister will agree that, as we
heard from Professor Wikeley on Monday afternoon, although it is
unpopular—I wonder
whether there is a popular child support agency anywhere in the
world—it is pretty effective and gets quite high scores for
operational
effectiveness.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Well, his view was
academic.
On the
points that the hon. Gentleman made about the Australian system, I am
aware that the information sheets to which he has referred are
available on its website—it is possible to download them,
although I could not do it. However, I know what the sheets say: they
provide introductory information about the issues that they
cover—I agree that they cover a copious range of related
issues—and then move on to signpost people towards family
relationship centres, which are not part of the Australian
agency.
2.30
pm
The hon.
Gentleman seeks to load additional areas of responsibility on to CMEC.
That concerns me because we are trying to set up an effective working
child maintenance system, and we know from past experience that that is
a difficult thing to achieve. I am reluctant to load additional
functions on to the organisation when we know that its existing core
function is already difficult. It is not as though the Government are
not trying to do some of the things mentioned in the papers drawn from
the Australian CSA’s website, with which the hon. Gentleman is
familiar. We are seeking to provide exactly that support to families
who are going through difficult times. However, such work is not being
done by the agency or by the Department for Work and Pensions, but by
the Department for Children, Schools and Families. What the hon.
Gentleman wants to happen will come about in any
event.
Andrew
Selous:
I continue to urge the Minister to see that line
of argument not as imposing an extra burden on CMEC, but as something
that will be fundamental in helping it to achieve its objectives in the
Bill. I am relaxed about who provides that and how it works
cross-departmentally. I want it to be made available and out there for
people to use.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
That is the point I am trying to make. If the
hon. Gentleman studies the proposals that are being worked on by
colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, he
will see the emergence of the kind of support he wants. It is a
cross-Government strategy on family policy. It will cover services that
support families directly and those that deal with family dysfunction
and family breakdown. The aim of the strategy is to ensure that policy
across Government is consistent and works in children’s best
interests. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is there, but is it set out
differently from the Australian
measure.
Amendments
Nos. 24, 25, 56 and 72 collectively propose two additions to the main
objective. The first requires conditions of support for parents who
meet their financial and emotional responsibilities, and has regard,
too, for the welfare of children. The second, which we touched on in a
previous debate, requires the commission to secure the payment of any
arrears.
The Bill already requires the
commission to support parents who meet their
financial obligations. The existing objective is to maximise the number
of effective arrangements. Those are arrangements that are working,
where money is flowing and in which parents meet their financial
responsibilities. To pursue that objective, clause 5 places a
requirement on the commission to provide parents with the information
and support that they need to put such arrangements in place.
The issues of
emotional support and the welfare of the child are less
straightforward, but the legislation will require the commission, like
the agency before it, to have regard to the welfare of the child when
taking discretionary decisions within the statutory maintenance system.
However, we do not want to impose a general requirement on the
commission to take account of the overall welfare of the child, or to
support parents in providing both financial and emotional support. The
commission’s primary objective and role is to ensure that
effective financial arrangements for the support of children are
reached. Other organisations are better placed to deal with emotional
needs, which will vary from case to case and from family to family.
Those will be backed up by the initiatives that are being taken across
Government, as I have already explained. In helping parents to agree
their financial responsibilities, the commission will provide greater
financial stability for the household in which the child lives. That
can only help resolve emotional matters.
On the issues raised in
amendment No. 85 and the importance of the phrase “appropriate
voluntary arrangements”, I can provide complete reassurance to
the Committee that the commission must already take account of the
wishes of one or both parents. The objectives require the commission to
maximise effective maintenance arrangements. The subsidiary objectives
require the commission to encourage and support the making of
appropriate voluntary arrangements. I was relieved to hear the hon.
Member for South-West Bedfordshire say that he did not wish to remove
the word “appropriate”, because it serves a critical
purpose in the clause, as he rightly
acknowledged.
The
words “effective” and “appropriate” are
important. “Effective”, as I have already mentioned,
means an arrangement that works. “Appropriate” means an
arrangement that is suitable to the circumstances of the parents in
question; it is the right type of arrangement, at the right level, and
it is sustainable. If the commission attempted to encourage voluntary
arrangements against the wishes of one or both parents, it would end up
failing to achieve its objectives. The arrangement would be unlikely to
work if it was not what both parents wanted.
If the Committee is concerned
that parents will be forced into unfair voluntary arrangements, I would
like to reassure it that an application can be made to the statutory
maintenance service at any point by either parent. That would override
any existing voluntary arrangement.
Mr.
Weir:
I am slightly concerned about that. I accept what
the Minister is saying, but I understood that by allowing voluntary
arrangements, an allowance other than the weekly maintenance would be
paid. Will
that not be undermined if either party can take the matter to CMEC after
a voluntary agreement has been entered
into?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
No. If a voluntary agreement breaks down, there
is clearly a need for referral to the statutory scheme, because
maintenance has ceased to flow and our overriding objective is the
welfare of children. If a voluntary agreement has broken down because
either party is not honouring it—the most likely scenario is
that the non-resident parent ceases to pay maintenance—the only
way to get payment flowing again, which is what is important in the
interests of the child, might be to bring the statutory system to bear
on the
case.
Mr.
Weir:
That is not the point. Some couples might decide to
have a clean break and transfer a large capital sum from one to the
other in lieu of weekly or monthly maintenance in a voluntary
agreement. Unless that agreement can be written in stone once the
capital has been transferred, there is a serious problem because one
party may later decide to go to CMEC to ask for maintenance, and
disregard the earlier capital transfer. That was a problem with the CSA
and I understood that the voluntary agreements were designed partly to
get round that problem.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The switch to voluntary arrangements has a
number of drivers behind it. Many parents are able to come to a
voluntary arrangement and cheerfully do so. Voluntary arrangements work
well on the whole and often endure better than other arrangements, so
we obviously want to encourage separating couples to make them. The
whole reason for withdrawing the clause 6 obligation is to prevent
parents who are separating from being forced into the statutorily-based
arrangement when the parent with care of the child is on benefits,
because a voluntary arrangement might be within reach. That is
currently denied because of the existence of the clause 6 stipulation,
which needs to go. That will encourage people to move to voluntary
arrangements. I am simply saying that we cannot—nobody
can—prescribe what the nature of the voluntary agreements will
be; by definition, they will be arrived at between the two parties. In
future, if such an agreement breaks down, the parent with care ought to
have recourse to a system to put in place a flow of child maintenance.
In assessing whether that system is likely to be taken up, the content
of previous voluntary agreements will be a factor for
consideration.
The
Bill brings in new powers to strengthen and streamline the enforcement
of debt management, as has already been discussed, as well as the
powers at the commission’s disposal. I hope that I have covered
all the points made and that I have reassured Members who have spoken
to the amendments that they are not essential and can be
withdrawn.
Paul
Rowen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: No. 72, in clause 2, page 1,
line 10, at end insert
‘, and to support these
parents’ joint responsibility to ensure financial support and,
whenever possible, emotional support, having regard to the welfare of
the children affected by these arrangements.’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
12.
Division
No.
2
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Weir:
I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(c) to advise
on existing systems of creating, registering and enforcing voluntary
arrangements including, in Scotland, the ability to register such
agreements in the Books of Council and
Session.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 88, in clause 5, page 2, line 22, at
end insert
‘, and such
information shall include information on existing systems of creating,
registering and enforcing voluntary agreements including, in Scotland,
the ability to register such agreements in the Books of Council and
Session.’.
Mr.
Weir:
I should declare an interest at the outset. I am
non-practising solicitor, although I remain a member of the Law Society
of Scotland. When I was working as a solicitor before entering the
House, I dealt with family law. That experience drives me to try to
make procedures for separation relatively simple and quickly
enforceable. Enforceability is vital in any sort of
agreement.
The
amendments are more or less identical, so I shall deal with them
together. They refer to a procedure in Scots law that could be useful
to those who are considering entering a voluntary agreement under the
Bill. I do not know whether such a procedure exists in the law of
England and Wales, so I shall confine my comments to the Scottish
situation. I have raised the issue on several occasions with the
Secretary of State and with his predecessor. I drew encouragement from
Lord McKenzie in our evidence session, when he confirmed that there was
nothing in the Bill to prevent the continued use of minutes of
agreement recorded in the Books of Council and Session. I think that
there is a problem relating to section 4 of the 1991 Act, but that is
the subject of a later
amendment.
Members
might recall that, in our evidence-taking session, there was a great
deal of discussion about the use of agreements between the parties.
Although I support the Government’s proposals to allow parents
to enter an agreement between themselves, I am
concerned about how it will be done and about the advice and information
that will be given to those entering such agreements. From the
evidence, it seems clear that information will be given via the
internet, by telephone or perhaps in a face-to-face session. I raised
questions about how the agreements will be recorded and monitored, and
I was not particularly reassured by the answers that I received. I
appreciate that we are still waiting for regulations on the exact
nature of the agreements, but the Bill does not state even that any
such agreement should be in writing. I suggest that if they are not
reduced to writing, we will face disaster in
future. 2.45
pm
During a
previous debate, I was somewhat concerned by the
Minister’s comments on minutes of agreement. Many minutes of
agreement may contain an offset of capital against regular income, and
I am not sure that that situation has yet been properly
addressed.
In her
evidence, Janet Allbeson noted that minutes of agreement could not be
enforced, but that is not quite the case; under the Scottish system,
they can be enforced. In essence, the system that operates in Scotland
allows any two parties to enter into an agreement, which can then be
recorded in the books of council and session, which is effectively part
of the public registers of Scotland. The original deed is retained by
the register, and an extract is issued with a guarantee that it is a
true copy of the original.
The register is typically used
to ensure that important documents are not lost. For instance, the
wills of deceased persons are recorded there. For our purposes,
however, it is often used to record agreements—in particular,
agreements reached by separating or divorcing couples. Such agreements
can cover all aspects of the separation, and not only monetary matters.
For example, they can deal with capital and with access arrangements
for the children and the like.
The important additional factor
for present purposes is that, if an agreement includes a statement that
it may be recorded for execution, it will have the same effect as a
court decree. Therefore, if parties enter into an agreement and
register it and either party does not adhere to it, it can be enforced
without the need to obtain a court order—or, for our purposes,
starting afresh by going to CMEC.
The Minister may remember that
concern was raised on Second Reading that if a voluntary agreement were
to break down the parties might have to go back to stage one by making
an application to CMEC. If they had entered into a registered minute of
agreement, that would not be necessary, as the agreement could be
enforced. Clearly, that will have immense benefits for parents with
care, who will undoubtedly wish to take prompt action if they are not
getting the money that had been promised.
The purpose of the amendments
is simply to make it clear to those who seek advice that there are
procedures other than using only the statutory CMEC procedures or
entering into a voluntary agreement of the type that CMEC suggests.
They can enter into a minute of agreement and register it, which has
the additional benefit that it can be enforced. If CMEC is to have a
standard minute of agreement, there is nothing to
stop it including a declaration that it may be recorded for
preservation and execution; that would allow the agreements to be
executed without the need to go back to CMEC, or to court, if such
things fall apart. I
note also that the books of council and session are already available
for use in other areas relating to children. I shall cite an example.
Under section 4(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, unmarried
parents can register an agreement that gives the father parental rights
in respect of the child. Under Scots law, as in England, a mother has
automatic parental rights but a father does not. The agreement is
simple—I have an example—and it can be recorded in the
books. It has binding force and gives parental rights to the
father.
There is precedent. The use of
minutes of agreement should at least be considered by CMEC, because if
agreements are to have any life, they must be easily enforced. If
agreements simply delay matters, with applications having to be made to
CMEC and the whole procedure having to be started again, the system
will fail.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
We are straying again into Scottish law. In
replying to the debate, I shall keep a beady eye on my the
Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the
Member for Stirling, in case I stray from the truth.
I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Angus for moving the amendment, as he gives me the
opportunity to highlight the Government’s interest in supporting
parents in agreeing suitable maintenance arrangements for their
children and the part that effective voluntary arrangements play in
that.
The hon.
Gentleman is concerned about how minutes of agreement, which are
available to parents in Scotland, will fit into the new system of child
maintenance, and it might help if I try to explain that. Minutes of
agreement are voluntary written agreements, entered into by both
parents, usually after they have received legal advice, and registered
in the books of council and session and therefore enforceable. The
equivalent in England and Wales are consent orders—the court
makes an order that reflects a written maintenance agreement between
parents. Again, that is usually done after legal advice has been
given.
Under the
Child Support Act 1991, the minute of agreement or consent order can be
overturned in two contexts. First, if the parent with care claims
income-related benefit, any minute of agreement or consent order that
contains child maintenance is overturned, whether or not the parents
are content with that agreement. Secondly, where parents are not on
benefit, minutes of agreement or consent orders can be overturned after
12 months if one of them—or, in Scotland, a child aged 12 or
more—is not happy with the arrangement and applies to the CSA
for a maintenance calculation.
The Bill will rightly break the
link with the benefits system, so that consent orders or minutes of
agreement can continue for as long as both parents want them to, with
no interference from the statutory maintenance scheme. To be absolutely
clear, the commission will not overturn any minute of agreement unless
that is expressly desired by one or more of the parties.
Amendment No. 87 would give the
commission an additional subsidiary objective: to advise on existing
ways of creating, registering or enforcing voluntary arrangements,
particularly minutes of agreement in Scotland. Amendment No. 88 would
place a duty on the commission, as part of its information and guidance
function, to give parents information about how to create, register and
enforce such arrangements.
The commission’s main
objective, as stated in the draft Bill, will be to maximise the number
of effective maintenance arrangements in place. Effective arrangements
are those that work and that are right for the parents in question. For
some parents, such an arrangement will need to be made through the
statutory scheme. For others, it will be a voluntary arrangement of
some kind—a private agreement, a consent order or a minute of
agreement. Where parents can take responsibility for making their own
maintenance arrangement, we believe that that is the best way forward.
Arrangements reached by agreement can work very well and, where
appropriate, they are often highly successful in delivering maintenance
to children.
We want
the arrangements to continue, and it is right that parents should be
made aware of the range of options available to them for arranging
maintenance and receiving general guidance on how to establish such
arrangements. We recognise that there are already systems that allow
parents to make their own maintenance arrangements outside the
statutory maintenance schemes. The amendment proposed by the hon.
Member for Angus refers to one such route—minutes of agreement.
In England and Wales, parents can ask a court to make a written
maintenance agreement in a consent order, although that is usually done
on divorce, when other financial issues have to be settled.
I am not clear as to the
purpose of the amendment, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman
has concerns about the position of minutes of agreement under the new
system. I hope that my comments have allayed them. If his purpose is to
ensure that parents will be made aware of the range of options
available to them, I can reassure him that that purpose is already
captured not only by the commission’s main objective to maximise
the number of children with effective maintenance arrangements, but by
the provisions of clause 5, which makes it clear that the commission
must provide information and guidance to parents to help them to secure
effective maintenance arrangements. If that his intention, I hope that
he will agree to withdraw the amendment, as it is not
necessary.
However,
if the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the commission
gives detailed information and advice as to how to create, register and
enforce a minute of agreement, I cannot agree that the commission
should be statutorily obliged to provide such a service. Minutes of
agreement and consent orders are not restricted solely to matters of
child maintenance. They may deal with a range of financial issues on
divorce or separation. It would not be right to involve the commission
directly in wider issues of family law, or to require it to provide
detailed guidance on what could be highly technical matters that may
need to take account of a range of financial issues and
other complex individual circumstances. For that reason, I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Weir:
I have listened to the Minister, and I will not
press the amendment to a vote. My purpose in tabling it was simply to
highlight the issue and to make the point that it is important that the
commission does not just rely on a standard minute of agreement that it
has produced without making it clear to couples that other options are
available. If that is to be made clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: No. 29, in
clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end
add—
‘(4) In pursuing and
having regard to its objectives, and in the exercise of its functions,
the Commission shall have regard to the welfare of any children likely
to be affected.’.—[Paul
Rowen.]
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
3
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move amendment No. 73, in
clause 2, page 1, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(4) In relation
to the Commission’s subsidiary objective in subsection (2)(a),
the Commission shall have the power to use its enforcement powers in
respect of appropriate voluntary maintenance
agreements.’.
This
is the last amendment to clause 2 that we will debate this afternoon.
It brings us back to an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the
Member for Weston-super-Mare in a number of interventions on the
Secretary of State on Second Reading. I am aware that there are
different views on the subject, but I still think that it merits a
little more debate. My intention in moving the amendment is simply to
ensure that we have a system that
works.
The Minister
does not know, and I do not know, what the take-up for private
voluntary arrangements will be. The first objective of the commission
in subsection (2)(a)
is
“to encourage and
support the making and keeping by parents of appropriate voluntary
maintenance
arrangements”.
The
objective of the CMEC scheme is purely to support that. The whole
premise of CMEC is that the Minister and the Department hope that there
will be a big take-up for voluntary arrangements. If that is the case,
we all hope that they will work.
Given all the difficulties that
we debated this morning, if parents with care are to contemplate going
down the voluntary route without the protection of the
agency for enforcement, they need to have some conviction that the
agreement that they enter into will be worth the paper that it is
written on and will have some weight behind it. I know that the
Minister will respond shortly that a voluntary arrangement is just
that, that it is not the business of CMEC to get involved and that it
has enough on its plate sorting out the historic debt, which we
have debated, and ensuring that the maintenance arrangements that it is
responsible for under subsection 2(b) are working. That is a perfectly
reasonable
response. 3
pm
My contention,
however, is that if members of the public make their own voluntary
arrangements, which then break down, they will arrive at the door of
CMEC requiring it to do a lot more work than purely
enforcing the agreement. If they come out of a voluntary agreement,
they arrive at CMEC’s door needing advice, information, a
calculation, an assessment and so on, and all of that needs to be set
up. If the voluntary private agreement breaks down, there is a lot of
extra work, which the Minister is trying to discourage—or
certainly not trying to
encourage.
I am trying
to help the Minister to get where he wants to be, with a lot of
voluntary arrangements that work, that people are happy with and that
parents with care have some confidence can endure. His counter-argument
will be that it is not up to CMEC to enforce agreements and parents
have the option of coming into the full statutory scheme. However, that
will create a lot more work than my proposal would, which intends
merely to use the enforcement part of CMEC to oversee voluntary
arrangements.
I want
to get to the place that the Minister wants to get to. I am just not
entirely convinced that the big stick of saying, “If it
doesn’t work, you will be brought kicking and screaming into the
CMEC apparatus,” is necessarily going to be enough. None of us
knows what the reaction of the public will
be.
Stephen
Hesford:
If the hon. Gentleman’s scheme comes into
force and the hitherto voluntary agreements come into the CMEC system
for enforcement, such agreements would cease to be voluntary. They
would be coming for enforcement only because they had ceased to be
agreements and had broken down, so how can that
work?
Andrew
Selous:
That is a lawyer’s argument in terms of its
strict divisions. We are lucky to have a number of lawyers on the
Committee and I shall be interested in what they say, but I am one of
those men who do not think that lawyers always have a monopoly of
wisdom on every
subject.
We are
creating a Bill and have flexibility: we have blank pieces of paper
that we can fill in. I want to tease out from the
Minister whether it is possible for a residual enforcement power to be
available. The hon. Member for Wirral, West is right that that would
change the nature of the agreement and I accept that it would no longer
be voluntary. However, my proposal does not go all the way to being the
complete bells-and-whistles CMEC arrangement that the Minister is
trying to discourage. It would not be the cause of a lot more work and
expense for CMEC.
I hope that the Minister will
accept the spirit of the amendment. He might not agree with it, but I
am trying to help him to get to the place where he wants to be. There
is a genuine divergence of view out there. If he can convince me that
there is an effective way to do it, I will be happy to withdraw the
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
As the previous debate on the amendment of the hon.
Member for Angus shows, there is concern about what will happen if one
of the parents reneges on the agreement when the number of voluntary
agreements increases. We are all seeking assurance from the Minister
that there will not be a situation in which the parent with care is
left waiting for years before their case is resolved, as with some
cases at the moment.
I
come back to the principal concern of the Bill, which is the care and
maintenance of the child. That must be central to everything that we do
and appropriate administrative arrangements must be in place so that if
a voluntary agreement breaks down, it can be speedily resolved. I hope
that the Minister will say to us that if the amendment is withdrawn, he
will come forward with regulations and, as one of the later amendments
seeks to do, set clear time scales to ensure that cases are dealt with
quickly. We have already lost a generation of children who have not had
the care and maintenance that they deserve, and we want to ensure with
CMEC that that does not happen; that it is clearly explained to people
what will happen if a voluntary arrangement breaks down; and that there
are clear targets to ensure that if CMEC’s statutory scheme is
applied, it will be dealt with as a priority, and not be put on the
back burner because CMEC has too big a case load to deal with its
statutory
cases.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I reassure hon. Members that the commission must
support parents in achieving the best arrangements for them, in order
to meet the objective of ensuring that the maximum number of effective
maintenance arrangements are in place. We know that for some parents
who have a voluntary arrangement, that is the best possible solution,
particularly in situations where communication between parents is good,
and there is no dispute over the need for continuing support.
Many parents will not fall into
that category at the outset, at least, and they need a legally
enforceable arrangement to ensure that maintenance flows to their
children. In principle, it is important to draw a distinction between
maintenance agreements that parents themselves agree and maintain, and
those that require state involvement. The commission will support
parents in creating voluntary agreements, whenever circumstances make
that appropriate, and will offer them support to maintain those
agreements. We know that there are at least 500,000 voluntary
arrangements already in place, and that both compliance levels and the
amounts of awards are generally higher than where there is recourse to
arrangements made by the state.
However, if a voluntary
arrangement breaks down irretrievably, the best approach is to support
the parents into the statutory scheme to secure an ongoing liability. I
do not think that it would be appropriate
or helpful for the commission, in effect, to extend its reach over every
voluntary arrangement in place now, or created in future. I fail to see
how that supports wider Government objectives to encourage parental
responsibility. I also fail to see how it could make the maintenance
system, and the choices therein, comprehensible to many of our more
vulnerable constituents. On a practical level, I also
find it difficult to see how the commission could enforce the arrears,
for example, that arise out of voluntary arrangements. The situation
that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire seeks with his
amendment to put CMEC into, is an odd one. Blurring the distinction
between the role of the agency in respect of statutory agreements, and
its powers in relation to those that are voluntary—that is an
important word—would imply that CMEC’s enforcement powers
lie behind arrangements which CMEC has had no part whatever in
determining. It would also be odd—and I think that he would
agree with me if he reflects on it—to put CMEC in a situation
where it has to come in as the enforcer of arrangements which it has no
responsibility for bringing about in the first place. It would have to
attempt to understand and unravel those arrangements in order to apply
enforcement. He would have it doing that in an unlimited number of
cases. It would not be reasonable to expect the commission to be the
enforcer of a huge array of bewilderingly different, and often quite
complex, arrangements.
Although we would like parents
to make voluntary arrangements, with an understanding of what they
would be eligible for under a statutory scheme, parents will be able to
come to their own detailed agreements. Forthcoming qualitative research
shows that parents often agree on an array of payment frequencies and
amounts to fit in with their individual
circumstances.
For
example, the parent may agree that payments need not be made during the
school holidays while the child is staying with the non-resident
parent. Also, arrangements can sometimes be made up of a lower regular
cash payment, which is supplemented by periodical in-kind payments,
such as the payment of utility bills or school uniform
purchases.
Although
that type of flexibility can be good for families, it would be
difficult for the commission to apply its enforcement powers reliably
and accurately to any voluntary arrangement of that nature. That is
because it would require the commission to work out what payments had
been made, whether records had been kept and on what basis, and whether
arrears had only accrued because of a major change in circumstances
that the voluntary agreement had not taken account of, but which the
commission would need to. The hon. Gentleman is asking for an
impossible job to be done. On an ongoing basis, it would also be
difficult to vary, review or uprate those types of arrangement. Again,
it would require the commission to invest a huge amount of resource and
effort in working out the basis on which such payments had been agreed.
For those practical reasons alone, I hope that he will ask leave to
withdraw his
amendment.
Andrew
Selous:
I listened carefully to the Minister and found his
response more convincing than some of the responses he has given me
this afternoon. I intend
to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I say to him in passing that
CMEC’s enforcement will have to be a lot better than the
CSA’s has been. There are massive enforcement clauses, which we
are coming to, but the Minister’s presumption will only work and
there will only be an increase in voluntary arrangements if parents
know that the CMEC scheme has some teeth and will be applied
meaningfully. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
