Clause
3
Functions
of the Commission:
general
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 80, in
clause 3, page 2, line 11, after
‘efficiently’, insert
‘and the Secretary of State may by
regulation provide for the Commission to be liable to pay compensation
where—
(a) maladministration by the
Commission is accepted, or
(b)
the Commission has exercised its power to write off arrears in
accordance with section 41E of the Child Support Act 1991, as inserted
by section 31 of this
Act.’.
The
clause deals with some of the general functions of the commission. The
amendment seeks to ensure that something is set up and included in the
Bill to deal with payment of compensation where there is a clear case
of maladministration or where, as I mentioned earlier, the commission
has exercised its power to write off arrears, particularly, as has been
mentioned earlier, in the case of past debt.
Currently, the CSA, because it
is an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions, uses the
“Guide to financial redress for maladministration”, which
allows financial redress if certain criteria are fulfilled. Given that
CMEC will not be part of the Department, but will be an independent
body, can such a financial redress guide apply? If it will not apply,
what arrangements will the Minister put in place to ensure that clear
criteria are set out to allow, in certain agreed cases, for financial
redress?
At the
moment, the system operated in respect of the “Guide to
financial redress for maladministration” is not very good. I
refer the Minister to the independent case examiners’ annual
report 2006-07, which stated that
a
“particular problem to
date has been the
Agency’s”—
that
is, the
CSA’s—
“failure
to identify the need for financial redress despite acknowledging its
maladministration. During the year, we identified 618 cases where the
question of financial loss or an advance payment of arrears arose.
Disappointingly, over 80% of these had not been considered for
financial redress when the Agency itself looked at the
complaint.”
That is a
damning statement of the CSA’s current operation. We are now
moving to the commission and I hope that the Minister will say that
proper procedures and arrangements will be put in place to ensure that,
when maladministration is demonstrated, a clear mechanism will be set
out whereby a parent can receive the payment in compensation.
The Minister might say that the
second route that will be applied is that of the
parliamentary ombudsman. However, we all know that at present the
recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman are not binding on the
CSA. They are only recommendations. Of the 618 cases that the case
examiners looked at, the CSA had not even considered the payment of
compensation in 80 per cent. of them. It is important to have a fresh
start. We are saying that the new agency will change what has happened
in the past. We must have an assurance or some mechanism to ensure that
compensation will be paid when maladministration has been
demonstrated.
3.15
pm
Andrew
Selous:
I should be grateful for the hon.
Gentleman’s thoughts on how the application of maladministration
under the measure that he is proposing would be different from the
reaction that we have received from the Government to the verdict of
maladministration in respect of occupational pensions. That was a
source of considerable dispute on the Floor of the House yesterday
afternoon.
Paul
Rowen:
As a member of the Public
Administration Committee, we discussed such matters this morning. We
agreed on behalf of all parties to write to all hon. Members to request
that they look clearly at the issue, as the debate demonstrated
yesterday, and at the principle that people have not been given proper
redress. It is important that, as a fresh start, we set out what will
happen. If something goes wrong, we will make it clear to the
commissioners what we expect them to do. Parents and children have a
clear right to expect
that.
We are having a
fresh start. We do not want to go back to the mess that has existed
with the CSA. I hope that the Minister will reassure us and, if he is
not willing to accept the amendment, that he will introduce regulations
that set out the position clearly. He will have to do that anyway,
because CMEC will not be part of the Department for Work and Pensions,
so in a sense the maladministration guide should not apply. We need a
clear statement from him, as do parents, about how maladministration
will be dealt
with.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Let me see whether I can reassure the hon.
Gentleman. In a similar way to the scheme that is currently operated by
the Department, the commission will administer a compensation scheme
for cases of maladministration. It will provide recompense when
commission error has an adverse effect on the lives of our customers.
That is standard practice for a non-departmental public body of that
type, and it can be administered by the commission as being incidental
to its functions, without the need for the specific provision that he
seeks.
Andrew
Selous:
Will the Minister say whether the payment will be
the level of compensation that the CSA currently pays, which is about
£50 for the inefficient handling of a case? Are we talking about
the same sort of amounts or slightly
higher?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
As the hon. Gentleman knows,
payments of the sort to which he has referred are made by the existing
agency. There are also special conciliatory payments,
which can be much higher than that. I envisage that a range of payments
will be available under the existing scheme, but I would not like to
anticipate precisely what levels they will be at. The current scheme
will provide financial redress for maladministration by making payments
to remedy actual financial loss and exceptionally, as I have just said,
consolatory payments to acknowledge the personal impact of an error. It
is for those reasons that one cannot anticipate the levels, which will
often be case
specific.
Details of
this compensation scheme will be decided by the commission, albeit
within certain parameters set by the Secretary of State through the
financial memorandum and guidance powers, and subject to usual
Government accounting rules and principles. The commission will
also handle any cases of maladministration that occurred before the
transfer of functions from the Secretary of State to the commission on
behalf of the Secretary of State.
We have decided against seeking
a blanket power to write off debt that may appear to be unrecoverable.
We are, however, seeking a power in clause 31 to write off debt in very
limited, carefully specified circumstances. Those circumstances include
where a parent with care has asked for cessation of recovery of debt
and where it would be unfair or inappropriate to continue seeking the
recovery of debt—for example, where a parent with care and a
non-resident parent are reconciled, and the parent with care requests
that CMEC does not recover the
debt.
We also propose
to write off debt where the non-resident parent is deceased and the
debt cannot be recovered from the estate. In most cases, the commission
will act in accordance with the wishes of the parent with care, and
compensation will therefore not be appropriate. Where the commission
accepts that there has been maladministration on a particular case,
compensation would be dealt with through the scheme, as I have just
outlined.
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
Perhaps he will provide us with a note giving us an idea of the range
and how the scheme will
operate.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I think that I covered that in
response to an earlier intervention. It is difficult to quantify the
range when, as I have indicated, some of the settlements will be highly
case specific on assessments of injury to the party concerned.
Therefore I will not commit to specifying the payments, which cannot be
exemplified in the way in which the hon. Gentleman
seeks.
In conclusion,
the Department already operates a compensation scheme
for maladministration that is accepted by the ombudsman, and the
commission will operate a similar scheme. The commission will also be
responsible for administering complaints and compensation relating to
maladministration that occurred before it came into being. Furthermore,
where the commission uses its new power to write off debt, it will in
most cases be acting in accordance with the wishes of the parent with
care. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he
will withdraw his amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer,
which will reassure many parents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
clause 3, page 2, line 11, at
end add—
‘(4) The Commission
must publish accurate and timely management information data in order
to facilitate scrutiny of its
performance.’.
We
are back on to the subject of the provision of timely and accurate
information by the new body, which will obviously start from a pretty
troubled place given the current state of the CSA. My contention is
that it will need careful scrutiny and monitoring of its performance on
a range of fronts. We have heard about the debt issues. That certainly
would be among the management information that I want to see CMEC
produce regularly.
Obviously, CMEC will be
non-departmental public body. Some concerns have already been expressed
that it will be slightly more removed and perhaps slightly less subject
to parliamentary scrutiny than would otherwise be the case. We would
therefore like clause 3 to require the commission to publish the key
indicators of its performance, so that pressure can continue to be put
on it to ensure that it becomes the type of organisation that we all
want it to
become.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I think that this will be a brief debate,
because I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission is already
required to publish a range of information to allow sufficient
scrutiny. The commission, like many other non-departmental public
bodies, such as the pensions regulator, is required to prepare, publish
and lay before Parliament annual reports and accounts each financial
year. The report must cover all the commission’s activities,
but, in addition, we require the inclusion of four other matters:
first, the commission’s strategic direction, including
information on how that direction is kept under review year by year;
secondly, the commission’s objectives and targets, including
information on the steps that are being taken to meet them and the
extent to which they have been met; thirdly, the steps taken to monitor
the commission’s performance in ensuring that its functions are
exercised effectively and efficiently; and fourthly, information on the
extent to which the commission has relied on the contracting out
provision in clause 8.
Andrew
Selous:
I would be grateful if the Minister were to point
out where those requirements are in either the Bill or the regulatory
impact
assessment.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The requirements do not appear in the Bill, but
they will be evident in due course, primarily through
regulations. Collectively, they will provide a comprehensive, accurate
and timely report on the commission by which its performance can be
scrutinised by Parliament. We also anticipate that, like the CSA, the
commission will continue to publish on a regular basis a summary of
management information
statistics.
I hope
that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is not
necessary, because the matter has already been covered. On those
grounds, I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Andrew
Selous:
This brief debate has illustrated one of the
problems with the way in which the Government have brought the Bill
forward compared with the Welfare Reform Act 2007. That measure was
prepared by the same Department, and my colleagues who served in the
Committee that considered it were provided with draft regulations. I do
not know whether the Department and its officials were scarred by the
experience of having to provide such information, but we are debating
only the broad outline or skeleton of these
measures.
I am grateful to the Minister
for letting us know that the detail of exactly what CMEC will be
required to report will be made available in regulations. Of course,
members of the Statutory Instrument Committees that consider the
regulations will only have a choice of accepting or rejecting the
regulations in their entirety, and they will not be able to add things
to them. It would have been helpful to have such information in draft
regulations.
Having
said that, I have no reason to doubt the Minister’s word. I am
reassured that management information will be copious, adequate, and
frequently supplied. From that, we will be able to tell, clearly and
easily, whether CMEC is achieving its objectives and whether it is
going backwards, forwards or standing still. On the basis of what the
Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
4
Promotion
of child
maintenance
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
clause 4, page 2, line 15, leave
out ‘taking responsibility
for’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss amendment No. 31, in
clause 4, page 2, line 17, at end
add—
‘, whether by
voluntary arrangements or by use of the statutory
scheme’.
3.30
pm
Paul
Rowen:
The purpose of the amendments is to expand on the
clause. I do not believe that they are controversial. They would make
it clear that there are two means by which child maintenance can be
paid: by voluntary means or by the statutory scheme. Although we
understand why the Government wish to promote the use of the voluntary
scheme—if parents can come to an agreement about child
maintenance that is obviously the preferable means of agreeing a way
forward—there are times when that is not the case. We want the
Bill to give equal weight and substance to the voluntary and the
statutory schemes.
Many parents
find it impossible to reach a voluntary agreement because they end up
in very difficult relationships. For example, 35 per cent. of lone
parents experience violence in their relationship and in such
circumstances there is no way in which a voluntary scheme will work. As
we discussed, a voluntary arrangement is suitable only if both parties
agree to it.
The
amendment would ensure that maintenance is promoted and that people are
made aware, through the information systems that will be set up, that
equal weight will be given to the voluntary and to the statutory
scheme. It is important to ensure that a parent in difficult
circumstances who has been subject to domestic violence is fully aware
of their statutory entitlement and of what CMEC can do to ensure that
that entitlement is
delivered.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the intention behind
the amendment is for the commission to promote the importance of child
maintenance in an even-handed way, as he would see it, and allow
parents themselves to choose whether they prefer a voluntary or a
statutory arrangement. However, I would be extremely loth to lose the
important words “taking responsibility”, which are
clearly enshrined in the Bill as drafted. The amendment appears to be
based on a misunderstanding of what clause 4 intends to
do.
The
clause places a duty on the commission to promote awareness among
parents of the importance of taking responsibility for the maintenance
of their children and securing maintenance in whatever way is most
appropriate. It therefore provides the commission with the power to run
campaigns to have a positive influence on both parents, emphasising the
importance of agreeing, establishing and maintaining effective
maintenance arrangements.
However, the
clause does not apply only in relation to voluntary maintenance
arrangements. The purpose of the wording that the amendment would
remove is simply to recognise that without compulsion the impetus for
initiating the maintenance arrangement, whether through an application
to the commission or by making a voluntary agreement, will always lie
with at least one of the parents rather than with the state. Any
promotion or awareness-raising activity needs to reflect that. For that
reason, the amendment is superfluous, as the wording of clause 4(b)
does not attempt to distinguish between different types of arrangements
or indicate a preference between them for the purposes of
promotion.
In exercising
that function, as with others it is being given, the commission must
aim to realise its overall objectives—in other words, to
maximise the total number of effective maintenance arrangements in
place. To do that, it must encourage and support appropriate voluntary
maintenance arrangements and support the making of applications to the
statutory maintenance service.
The commission
has no desire to push people inappropriately into unstable voluntary
maintenance arrangements; indeed, it would be failing if any action led
to that. I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but I hope
that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that both this function and
others, such as information and guidance, will be exercised on the
basis that parents are best placed to decide what sort of arrangements
suit their children’s needs. The commission’s role is to
encourage them actively to consider the issue, make them aware of the
choices they face and support them through the decision-making process.
I hope that that reassures him and that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful for that clarification. I admit that
amendment No. 30 was based on a misunderstanding, but the Minister has
explained that the words “taking responsibility for” are
quite important. I understand also what he had to say about amendment
No. 31. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by
leave, withdrawn.
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 4, page 2, line 17, at
end
insert—
‘(c)
promote a culture of responsible parenting in which material and
emotional support are given throughout
childhood.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss amendment No. 77, in
clause 5, page 2, line 22, at end
insert
‘,
and for the purpose of supporting both parents with care and
non-resident parents in providing emotional support to their
children.’.
Andrew
Selous:
This will, I believe, be a relatively brief
debate, as I put my arguments earlier, as persuasively as I could. I
fear that it will again be a case of winning the argument but losing
the vote. I was not successful in persuading the Committee to back
earlier amendments on the subject, and I shall probably be no more
successful with this one.
The purpose of
the amendments is to achieve what I set out to do in earlier
ones—to enlarge the scope of the provision to allow
consideration of the welfare of the child not only in financial terms.
I did not expect CMEC to do it, so it was obviously necessary to try to
amend clause 2, but we also need to amend clauses 4 and 5, which is
what amendments Nos. 74 and 77 respectively would do.
The Minister may
wheel out his earlier notes and some ink could be saved as he will
probably make the same arguments as he made in the earlier debate. Of
course, his officials may be so wonderful as to give him a fresh set of
arguments for every amendment, even if they are essentially on the same
theme. None the less, I shall not try the Committee’s patience
by saying again what I said earlier. It is on the record. I said it on
Tuesday and again this morning. I have put my case, and I will
doubtless receive the same response.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Yes, the hon. Gentleman will receive much the
same response. If he trades his previously used words for mine, we can
expedite the Committee’s
proceedings.
The
Government of course recognise the central role that parents play in
determining their children’s outcomes and well-being. We know
that the way in which parents continue to engage with each other to
support their children after separation can have a major impact on the
children’s well-being. A low level of conflict between parents
and a good quality relationship with the resident parent can minimise
the negative impacts that separation might otherwise have on a
child’s health, social and educational outcomes.
For that reason,
one of the functions of the new information and support service will be
to provide some basic information and to signpost parents to the
appropriate services that will provide them with the expert help that
they need. That is why we have made provision in clause 5(2) to enable
the commission to provide information in relation to wider separation
issues, when those issues arise as part of discussions about child
maintenance. We want to
ensure that children’s emotional needs are effectively
supported, and we obviously recognise the link between emotional and
material well-being. However, we must ensure that the commission knows
where its expertise lies and that it uses it appropriately. That is
essential if the Government are to realise their objective in
relation to child poverty. Other organisations have expertise on the
emotional aspects of family breakdown, and if parents need such help we
would expect the commission to support them in gaining access to these
services. As I explained, there will also be cross-Government
initiatives to provide support.
In summary, I
suggest that the amendments would place a duty on the commission that
goes well beyond its main objective and in a way that is not
appropriate. As before, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
the amendment.
Andrew
Selous:
If my understanding of your helpful guidance this
morning is right, Mr. Chope, the Minister can respond once
more if he seeks to catch your eye. I would therefore like to prolong
the debate slightly, if I may.
The first line
of amendment No. 74 uses the word “culture” again. I know
that the Government are keen to change the culture. The Minister talked
about signposting the different organisations that would carry out some
of the provisions suggested in amendments Nos. 74 and 77, but I would
like to hear a little more about the Government’s
cross-departmental plans to change the culture and promote the sense of
parental responsibility, about which he was talking earlier. I think
that the details are still
sketchy.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I am happy to contribute briefly to this
extension of the debate, although it takes me beyond my
Department’s remit, as it is a cross-Government
programme.
The
Government understand the challenges that parents face, and we
recognise the need to give them as much support as possible to help
them deal with those. The hon. Gentleman will know that such work is
already done in family centres and children’s centres that are
being established all over the country and which do extremely valuable
work. They have evolved from Sure Start programmes. I do not know
whether he has had the same experience in his constituency as I have
had in mine, but I have heard from many lone parents that the
programmes have been of incredible value, giving parents a forum in
which to meet and to exchange experiences and information. I know of
many parents in those circumstances who say that they thought that they
were battling with those issues on their own, which is much harder to
do than if they are part of a group sharing a common
experience.
The
centres can also signpost parents to many other forms of support that
will help them. Building on that, and extending the initiatives across
many Departments,
including my own and those for education and social and health services,
will provide many points of access for those presenting a particular
parenting need at any given time. I hope that I have reassured the hon.
Gentleman and that he will support the Government’s initiatives,
as I think that we are trying to achieve the same
outcome—helping parents to meet the tough challenges that their
responsibility can
present. The
particular role of the agency—or CMEC, as it will
become—is to ensure that all our energies and focus go into
tackling what is just one of a series of stresses that arise from
family break-ups. If we can be certain that in reforming child
maintenance we are alleviating one source of pressure and strain on
parents, it will be our contribution to giving the breadth of emotional
support that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. Our efforts are being
complemented by those of other Departments and non-governmental
organisations.
Andrew
Selous:
I am grateful for the Minister’s further
elaboration on that point and I shall not seek to press either of the
amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
