Mr.
Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman take this as a genuine
comment? Is he not concerned with the equity of the position of
somebody who is in receipt of full benefits and who also receives child
maintenance—albeit perhaps an inadequate amount—compared
with somebody who simply receives benefits and who does not have the
advantage of the receipt of child maintenance? The needs of the child
are the same in each family, but the resources, whether public or
private, are very different, and the result in terms of poverty is also
likely to be very
different.
Paul
Rowen: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. At
the moment, the system is a barrier for parents who are going through
the process, because of the hassle involved. My concern is that if one
sticks at the £10 disregard, or if it is increased to £30
or whatever, that will be the amount that the non-resident parent
agrees to pay. That will not help to deal with the issue of child
poverty.
Andrew
Selous: Although I agree with what the hon. Member for
Rochdale has said, everyone needs to take my hon. Friend’s
warning note on board. It is the case that poverty in two-parent
families has increased. It has gone up from 57 per cent. in 2002-03 to
60 per cent. in 2005-06, according to the households below average
income figures for 2005-06. That does not run counter to anything that
my hon. Friend and I have said. My hon. Friend’s warning must be
heeded, if we are to be fair to everyone and to ensure that we lift all
children out of
poverty.
Paul
Rowen: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The
problem is that although we are dealing with child maintenance, this
amendment seeks to do something for one group of parents.
Save the Children gave me some
interesting figures yesterday, which are apposite to the hon.
Gentleman’s point. I am sure that members of the Committee have
seen the briefing from Save the Children on the elimination of child
poverty. If we carry on at the current rate, it will be 2049 before the
Government meet their target of halving child poverty. That is because
the disparity in income has grown between people at the top and at the
bottom, and there is therefore a disparity in the time that it will
take for parents to reach 60 per cent. of median income, which the norm
to which we aspire. It is frightening to consider the year 2049, when
we have a target of halving child poverty by 2010. Given that the costs
are £200 million, we must ask ourselves—I hope that the
Minister can answer this—what the real barriers are to
introducing the full disregard more quickly than is proposed at the
moment. I accept the
point made by the hon. Member for Daventry that we must consider the
issues not only for single parents but across the piece. Given that
this measure would cost £200 million and would have a dramatic
effect in reducing child poverty for a significant number of single
parents, why are the Government being so slow to introduce it? Also,
will the Government accept the concern that if section 6 of the 1991
Act is abolished without full income disregard, the effect may well be
that fewer parents, and therefore fewer children, will receive
child maintenance? We all want an increase, not a reduction, in the
number of parents receiving child maintenance.
I hope that the Minister will
explain why we have to wait until 2010. We may have to wait only until
this afternoon, when the Chancellor will give his pre-Budget statement.
I hope that the Minister can answer those
points.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mr. James Plaskitt): It is nice to be back,
Mr. Chope. I am sure that we will continue our deliberations
in the same constructive way as before the recess, and it is nice to
know that we will be able to conclude
them. I thank the hon.
Members for their amendments and comments. I am grateful that the
important reform at the centre of our proposals has been welcomed by
both hon. Members who have spoken. The reform is a major change, and it
is very important.
Our aim is to encourage parents
to make arrangements for maintenance on their own, if they can, while
maintaining a statutory maintenance service for those who cannot. To
achieve that, we propose to repeal sections 6 and 46, making the
removal of compulsion the first step in moving to a new system of child
maintenance. Hon.
Members have referred to the Government “delaying” the
implementation of the larger disregard. That implies that a clear
option was open to us immediately to go to the higher disregard level
and that a decision has been made to put it off. That is not the case.
It is not a matter of delay; it is a matter of doing all the necessary
preliminary work to ensure that the higher disregard levels can be
introduced. What has
to be done? First, there is research, which neither the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire nor the hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned. We
must carefully consider the interaction between higher disregards and
work incentives. If the objective is to reduce child poverty, as both
hon. Members have said and as I agree, we must take that factor into
account. If we were not certain of the impact of the changes in terms
of work incentives, and we subsequently found that the change
encouraged more people to stay on benefit and not to seek work, we
might not be serving the objective of reducing child poverty. It is
therefore important thoroughly to assess all the
impacts. There is
existing research, and the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire has mentioned the United States. That is not
exactly the same system, so we cannot necessarily assume a simple
transference
from the American experience to here. We have commissioned some research
of our own specifically to consider the circumstances pertaining to the
UK. The research is very close to conclusion, and we hope to publish it
very shortly. We must think carefully before making decisions on the
implementation of the higher
disregard. Paul
Rowen: My understanding is that DWP research shows that
the vast majority of lone parents want to work. A 10-year study of
British lone parents and their children from 1991 to 2001 found that,
controlling for other factors—in other words, aside from matters
such as education and occupation—receipt of child maintenance is
positively associated with parents moving into work, and not the
opposite. There should be no need for any more evidence, because the
existing research shows that worklessness and being a lone parent are
not related. Lone parents are just as willing and eager to work as
other
parents.
Mr.
Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that so
far the analysis is encouraging. I hope that he agrees that it is
crucial to be sure that we have this absolutely right, so that the
reform, as we introduce it, serves our common objective of reducing
child poverty. I also want to stress that that is not the only aspect
of disregard reform. Other changes, such as the extension of the
£10 disregard, will be introduced more quickly. There will
inevitably be sequencing to ensure that the systems work and that the
reform achieves our
objectives.
Mr.
Boswell: We are having a consensual discussion. Does the
Minister agree that the research should take into account the relative
equity between persons who are, or should be, in receipt of child
maintenance on the one hand, and persons who may well be in other parts
of the benefits system but who are not affected by child maintenance
issues? 11
am
Mr.
Plaskitt: That is being looked at as part of our research,
as the hon. Gentleman will see when it is published. We will encourage
parents to arrange child maintenance alongside the repeal of section 6,
whether through making their own arrangements or through applying to
the statutory maintenance service for a calculation. As part of this,
as we discussed before the recess, CMEC will introduce a
high-quality information and support service. It will draw in
low-income families and support them to make an informed choice about
which maintenance option suits their circumstances best. In addition,
we have already announced our intention to extend the existing
£10 disregard to all cases on the original scheme by the end of
next year. Around 80,000 children already benefit from the disregard.
The extension will extend that benefit to a further 55,000, which is
quite a significant step in terms of tackling child poverty.
We have made clear our
intention to increase significantly the maintenance disregard for all
parents with care from 2010-11, which will deliver on our twin
objectives of reducing child poverty and supporting parental
responsibility. However, we also recognise that
this is a complex issue, where many potential impacts need to be
considered. We need to ensure that we achieve the right balance between
the incentive to seek and pay child maintenance, and the incentive to
move into work. Securing that balance will provide the real child
poverty gains that we all seek to achieve. It is critical to get that
right. Continuing to overturn satisfactory arrangements or forcing
parents to justify why an application should not be made and imposing
benefit penalties on the most vulnerable parents are not
appropriate. We will
encourage parents to make maintenance arrangements as soon as possible,
and we should not make the timing conditional on the significant
increase in the benefit disregard. There is enough in the new system
from the outset, in the extended disregard and the new information and
support service, to encourage positive parental choice. We will build
on that with the significantly higher disregard to ensure the
longer-term success of the new system. I hope that for those reasons
the amendment will be withdrawn.
Andrew
Selous: I have listened with interest to the
Minister’s response. I want to leave on the record my concern
that I am not sure that he addressed the issue of equity between
families on benefits who are not in receipt of maintenance and those
who are in receipt of maintenance. He said that the research was
looking at that, but I again have to express disappointment that it is
not before the Committee. It seems slightly the wrong way round to have
the research commissioned while the Committee is sitting, so that we
are conducting our deliberations without the benefit of research that
the Government are conducting. As I said, we are also ignorant of what
the proposed significant increase in the level of the disregard will
be, but having heard what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I beg to move amendment No. 90,
in
clause 15, page 7, line 18, at
end add— ‘(c) section
4(10)(aa).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 125, in clause 15, page 7, line 18, at end
add— ‘(2) In section 4 of
the Child Support Act 1991 (Child support and maintenance), for
subsection (10)
substitute— “No
application may be made at any time under this section with respect to
a qualifying child or any qualifying children if there is in force a
maintenance order in respect of that child or those children and the
person who is, at that time, the non-resident
parent.”.’.
Mr.
Weir: It seems like “Groundhog Day” because
we are discussing matters that I have been raising ever since the
re-design of the Child Support Agency was first mooted. This is perhaps
the last throw of dice to try to persuade Ministers to look at the
matter anew. The
introduction of voluntary maintenance agreements has been widely
welcomed. It provides the possibility of removing many people from the
statutory system and creating agreements that are acceptable and
which work well—something that the current CSA has, frankly,
failed to do. Unfortunately, section 4(10)(aa) of the 1991 Act will, I
believe, act as a serious deterrent to many people who would otherwise
go down the route of a voluntary agreement. I note in passing that Sir
David Henshaw in his report recommended the abolition of the 12-month
rule, but the Government have not gone down that route and I would be
interested to hear the reason for that. The brief history is that the
original 1991 Act intended that the CSA would take over child
maintenance, but that soon proved to be beyond the agency’s
capabilities, and it clearly still is. Under the Child Support,
Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, the Government attempted one of
their many efforts to improve the agency by introducing the section
that allowed couples to reach an agreement, but they set a 12-month
time limit after which either party could apply to the CSA to overturn
the terms of the agreement. The rationale behind that was to give the
agency a breathing space during which couples could still reach an
agreement, but ultimately everything would come under the auspices of
the CSA. Given that we
are considering a change and, as the Minister said, we are encouraging
parents to reach their own agreement, the continued existence of the
rule will be a serious stumbling block to the widespread use of
voluntary agreements. I am sure he will say that we cannot have an
agreement that is set in stone for eternity. In essence, that is
correct, but the majority of agreements will have within them a
provision that allows for variations if there is a change of
circumstances. That was a standard clause in my previous life as a
solicitor when we entered into many such agreements prior to the CSA.
We recognised that child support was a long-term matter. It is not for
one year or five, but 16 or 17 years in some cases. There must be
allowance for variation. I suspect that the standard agreement produced
by CMEC will contain something similar to that—unless it is the
Minister’s intention that the CMEC agreement be renegotiated
each year, which will lead to some
friction. If voluntary
agreements merely mirror the statutory agreements, and if all we have
is a standard form into which the parties agree to pay statutory
percentages, an important chance will be lost to allow separating
parties to agree a clean break and reach agreements that reflect
accurately the particulars of the specific circumstances and provide a
much more solid basis for child contact to continue into the future,
which is the essence of such
matters. As the
Committee has discussed the matter, I have become slightly worried
about whether voluntary agreements will provide a serious alternative
to the statutory system. In our first evidence sitting, I raised
specifically the Scottish minutes of agreement, and Hilary Reynolds,
the civil servant in charge of the Bill, responded by saying:
“It is
worth noting that when we have talked to some clients about what they
find important in a voluntary agreement, sometimes it is not regular
payments, but lump sums, mortgage or school uniform payments, or
whatever. What suits the parents of the child or children will be a
variety of things, not just the standard x amount per
period.—[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other
Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 29.]
I agree with that statement, but I do not
believe that it would be possible under the proposals. If such an
agreement were entered into by parties, CMEC can intervene after the
year has passed and overturn
it.
| 
