|
Mr. Weir: I also agree with the terms of the amendment and think that it would be useful to include them. There is one point that I would like to include in such a report. The amendment refers to the consequences for parents and children, and one of the things that perhaps I did not make clear when I moved my own amendment was that there is also a consequence of a change from the old rules to the new for the parent with care, because there may be a decrease in the money that would go to that parent. It would be useful to know the consequence on that side of the equation, in order to balance it out and show fairness to both parties. The Government need to look at how they can deal with that issue quickly, but they need the full figures for both sides of the equation.
Mr. Plaskitt: I thank the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire, for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for Angus for their contributions. I have been asked a series of questions, and I think they were common to all who spoke. It has been suggested that we should publish fairly detailed estimates of the choices that customers within We have said on several occasions already that across the piece we anticipate a reduced work load for the commission as a result of choices that parents will make, and we have suggested that the overall case load might drop from around the 1.4 million at the moment to about 1 million. That gives some indication of the scale at which we think people will move out into voluntary arrangements. As I have said, however, we are researching that point. I am sure there will come a point when we can present our findings, but I do not want to commit to doing that at this stage, because I do not think that the figures would be terribly helpful or complete. However, the research is in hand. Danny Alexander: Will the Minister give the Committee an indication of the timescale for that research? If it is not going to be available for our deliberations in this House, will it be available for the deliberations that will take place in another place, so that at least it will be available before Parliament has finished its scrutiny of this important Bill? Mr. Plaskitt: I undertake to do my best to get something out before the deliberations are complete, but I will not force an acceleration of the research in order to meet a deadline. I would rather the research were complete, thorough and conducted systematically, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman and see what we can do. I have been asked about getting out information to parents as they begin to face that choice. Obviously, it is a big job for the commission to ensure that that is done appropriately, and it is clear that that must be the case. We want parents to be given clear indications of the choices before them and information about how they can make their choice and the implications of that choice. 9.45 amI have been asked about IT. We have identified the scale of the faults within the system. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has rightly pointed out, although one can consider the number of fixes as a proportion and see that the process is not complete, the fixes to which we have given priority relate to the major defects in the system. We are satisfied that most of the major deficiencies have been corrected, and most of the fixes that still need to be applied to CS2 are relatively minor. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has pointed out that it is important that we are confident that the IT is up to the job. Deficiencies in IT have bedevilled the system for a long time, and it is crucial that we establish that, as far as we can be certain, the IT is up to the job. It is also a task In schedule 5, we have made provision for the commission to develop a scheme for the movement of existing customers to new statutory maintenance arrangements. The scheme would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, and it is expected to begin in 2010 and to take three years. We intend to be completely transparent about how the transfer process will work. We will make the information available to hon. Members, so that they can raise any concerns at the time and before the transfer to the new arrangements begins. There is nothing to prevent hon. Members from securing a debate through the usual channels. It is essential not only that Parliament can scrutinise the plan, but that parents understand the choices that will be available to them during the transfer period. We are committed to minimising the disruption to parents during that period by providing a seamless service for the move to the new arrangements. I am concerned that the amendment could build delays into beginning the process of moving cases to the new arrangements. That would prevent children from benefiting from the movement to new maintenance arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity. I therefore hope that hon. Members will feel that committing to providing in advance the details of the transfer process, with the openness and transparency that I have outlined, will enable the process to be fully scrutinised by Parliament and parents. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Andrew Selous: I started by saying that this was a probing amendment, but I have been somewhat emboldened during the course of the debate and now seek to press it to a vote. I am purely seeking information. I do not accept, as the Minister has said, that the amendment would cause delay. If such actions are to be taken, they will be taken on the basis of available information, and all the amendment does is ask for that information be shared with Parliament. I do not know whether Committee members are familiar with the Clinger-Cohen arrangements in the United States Congress, where elected representatives regularly scrutinise the details of major public sector IT projects. I have long thought that that would be a useful measure for this Parliament to adopt, not least because of some of the difficulties that we have had. Given that the amendment is purely about seeking information, I do not accept that it would introduce delay, because the Minister and his officials would be acting on information. I am only asking him to share that information and to make it subject to scrutiny. I therefore want to press amendment No. 119 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11. AYES Alexander, Danny Harper, Mr. Mark Jackson, Mr. Stewart Penrose, John Selous, Andrew Weir, Mr. Mike NOES Clapham, Mr. Michael David, Mr. Wayne Engel, Natascha Griffith, Nia Hesford, Stephen James, Mrs. Siân C. McCarthy-Fry, Sarah McGuire, Mrs. Anne Owen, Albert Plaskitt, Mr. James Turner, Dr. Desmond Question accordingly negatived. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 19, page 8, line 15, after ‘it’, insert— ‘(aa) for that method of payment not to be used in any case where that person has not failed to make a payment of child maintenance;’. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I think that all the welcomes have been done, so I will skip over that, if you will forgive me, but I am delighted to see you in the Chair, anyway. I will try to be brief, as we have some ground to make up. The amendment is straightforward. In our deliberations before the summer recess, we discussed whether deduction from earnings should be the default method of payment, or whether people should be given the opportunity to avoid such deductions by continuing to make payments, therefore keeping their arrangements from their employer, which would be an incentive for compliance. The amendment would ensure that as long as someone continues to make their payments regularly and does not avoid them, the deduction from earnings order would not be the basic method—it would be triggered only if someone failed to make a payment. It is worth exploring the Minister’s views on whether it would be sensible to encourage that proposal, or whether earnings deduction should be the basic method, as there are pros and cons on both sides. I tabled the amendment in order to take the measure of the Committee’s view and to see whether the Minister has anything to add to our earlier discussion. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I am delighted to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. My week started with your asking me a question on the Floor of the House, to which I gave a very good answer, and I am pleased that you will now keep me under control in this Committee. As a matter of courtesy I welcome the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench—long may he stay on the Opposition Front Bench! I know from other debates that he takes a keen interest in issues relating to disability. I say, very gently, to the hon. Gentleman that this probing amendment would make it difficult for us to As the hon. Gentleman has said clearly and frankly, the amendment will limit the use of deduction from earnings orders to cases where the non-resident parent has already started to build up arrears and has fallen behind with maintenance payments. That would prevent deduction from earnings orders being used as a primary method of collection and further restrict the use of those orders by preventing them from being used, when there is a strong indication that the non-resident parent will not comply. We all recognise that there are non-resident parents who will use everything in the book to avoid payment. Moving to the new system—waiting for arrears to build up before taking action—is not a sensible approach, and there is a case for using a deduction from earnings order from the outset. There is evidence from the United States that there may be merit in using a deduction from earnings order as the primary method of collecting maintenance from non-resident parents, and we want to test whether that approach would be effective in this country. We shall try to find out if it leads to more money being collected for the children whom the whole Bill is intended to support, without creating—dare I say it?—excessive burdens on business. Our intention is for the commission to operate a pilot to test whether setting deduction from earnings orders as a default method of collection will increase compliance. I assure the Committee that we intend to put safeguards in place. Regulations will provide for deduction from earnings orders not to be used when non-resident parents can demonstrate a good reason, with a right of appeal if the commission decides that good reason has not been shown. Our clear primary aim is to get money to children who need support as quickly as possible. However, I also want to be clear that we will share the lessons learned from the pilot and take account of the impact on business. We have already had some preliminary discussions, in particular with the small business community. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, his amendment would further reduce, rather than increase, the scope for utilising what we believe will be an effective method for collecting child maintenance. It will have all the safeguards that I have described, and there will be piloting and sharing of the pilot results. Given the hon. Gentleman’s opening indication that the amendment is a probing one, I ask him to withdraw it. 10 amMr. Harper: I thank the Minister for her generous welcome. The fact is, of course, that I shall be staying on the Opposition Front Bench, given the Prime Minister’s decision not to have an election. As I think that I said earlier, I drafted the amendment specifically in relation to the missing of just one payment. We did not intend to allow arrears to build up, and I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments. I welcome, too, the Minister’s commitment to a pilot and to wide sharing of its results to see whether the use of the deduction from earnings order as the primary method, right from the beginning, is successful. Clearly, if the evidence shows that that method works smoothly and that it reduces the level of arrears and increases compliance, it will be a good thing. Given the concerns that the Minister has expressed and the fact that the amendment is a probing one, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mrs. McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 19, page 8, line 19, at end insert— ‘(4A) On an appeal under regulations made under subsection (4)(b) the court or (as the case may be) the sheriff shall not question the maintenance calculation by reference to which the order under section 31 would be made. (4B) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may include— (a) provision with respect to the period within which a right of appeal under the regulations may be exercised; (b) provision with respect to the powers of a magistrates’ court (or, in Scotland, of the sheriff) in relation to an appeal under the regulations.’. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 12 October 2007 |