 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill |
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 16 October 2007(Morning)[David Taylor in the Chair]Child Maintenance and Other Payments BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseCM
6 Memorandum submitted by Dr. P. A.
Howarth
10.30
am
Clause
30 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 31Power
to write off
arrears
Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I beg to move amendment No. 93,
in
clause 31, page 33, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In making
a decision to extinguish liability for arrears of child support
maintenance under subsection (1) the Commission shall have regard to
the welfare of the child or children in respect of whom the arrears are
due.’.
This
is a probing amendment to explore the scope of the commission’s
power to write off arrears and to seek confirmation that the wealth of
the child or children will be taken into consideration in respect of
any regulations that are made to do so. To be fair, we had a good
debate on this subject in the last amendment. The Minister gave us an
assurance that the welfare of the child would be paramount in this Bill
and when the commission wrote off debt. We also had a fairly good
debate on the circumstances in which debt may be written off and the
involvement of the parent with care. On that basis, I do not intend to
push the amendment, if the Minister is prepared to reiterate that that
will be taken into account in any write-off. I would be satisfied by
such an assurance and would withdraw the
amendment.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire):
In the light of the hon.
Gentleman’s comments, I am pleased to reaffirm what I said in
the earlier debate. Where we extinguish arrears of maintenance, the
existing child support legislation, which already safeguards the
interests of the child, will obviously be part of that decision. What
underpins this Bill is the welfare of the children. I thank the hon.
Gentleman for agreeing in advance of that reaffirmation to
withdraw his amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
32
to 35
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 36Pilot
schemes
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
clause 36, page 35, line 21, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The
results and finding of all pilot schemes must be published in separate
reports—
(a) every six
months while the pilot scheme is in operation,
and
(b) at the conclusion of
every pilot
scheme.’.
Like
the previous amendment, this is a probing amendment. I seek a little
more information from the Minister about the operation of pilot schemes
and, in particular, how the results and findings of such schemes will
be processed and published. If a pilot scheme is operated, the results
should be made available. The amendment seeks to ensure that the
results and findings are published every six months when a pilot scheme
is in operation and at the conclusion of every pilot scheme. I should
be grateful if the Minister could tell us how the Government intend to
operate any pilot
scheme.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mr. James Plaskitt):
I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Rochdale for moving his probing amendment. Before looking at
the effect of his amendment, let me deal with his other point and
outline the purpose of piloting. Piloting allows policies and
programmes to be tested, adjusted and evaluated before decisions are
made as to whether they are applied in general. The clause enables the
commission to pilot in circumstances that will benefit from that
approach.
I shall
give an example. We will be using the piloting powers to prove the
effectiveness of using deductions from earnings orders as the primary
method of collecting child maintenance from non-resident parents in
employment, and they will allow us to test that method for up to two
years. Pilots will be able to operate in specific areas and in relation
to specified types of people, or to people selected through either
specified criteria or on a sampling
basis.
The amendment
would compel the commission to produce six-monthly and final reports on
any pilot. Although I do not disagree with the main thrust of the
proposal, which is to publish the results of pilots, the hon.
Gentleman’s wish that it should be done on a six-monthly basis
would not achieve what he wants, and I shall explain why. Pilots can be
conceived and designed for a wide range of reasons, such as considering
the implementation of new services or the impact of a measure. The wide
nature and possible scope of pilots would make it difficult to ensure
that they were all able to meet the six-monthly reporting regime.
Furthermore, six-monthly reports would be of
little value, because the analysis of the findings would need to be
carried out from such an early stage in the pilot that it would be
unlikely to produce results of significant or sufficient quality. The
most effective analysis can be gained only from cases that have had a
sufficient journey through the system, allowing us to assess the full
impact of changes in circumstances—for example, the impact of
job change in the case of the direct earnings order pilot, which I
mentioned earlier.
The commission, in consultation
with the Department, will determine how best to report on research. As
the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill already requires the commission to
report on all activities in each and every financial year. I emphasise
that we share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the value of
publishing the results of pilots, but they are more effective if they
are allowed to run their natural course in an appropriate length of
time. The hon. Gentleman’s wish to have a fixed, regular
reporting period would not produce reports of much light; they would
probably impede the process. We want pilots to be of value and to give
us real results, which they will. They will be published at the
appropriate time, when the pilot has naturally
expired.
For those
reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 37Meaning
of
“child”
Mr.
Weir:
I beg to move amendment No. 94, in
clause 37, page 35, line 32, leave
out ‘20’ and insert
‘25’.
The
purpose of the amendment is to point out the slight contradiction
between the Bill and the laws of Scotland. Members will note that
clause 37 defines a child
as
“a person who has not
attained the age of 16, or has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies
such conditions as may be
prescribed.”
The
amendment would increase the age from 20 to 25, because the definition
of a child under Scots law, which can be found in the Family Law
(Scotland) Act 1985, defines a child as
“a
person—
(a) under the age
of 18 years; or
(b) over that
age and under the age of 25 years who is reasonably and appropriately
undergoing instruction at an educational establishment, or training for
employment or for a trade, profession or
vocation”.
Under that
Act, both parents are under an obligation to aliment the child while
they are undergoing such training or instruction. Under the law of
Scotland, both parents can be responsible for children until the age of
25 in those specific circumstances. I appreciate that the cases in
which that will become a problem are few and far between, but they do
exist. If the Bill is not amended, after the age of 20 anyone in
Scotland who is relying on this definition of “aliment”
may not be able to approach CMEC, because its responsibility would
end when they reached 20. If someone’s aliment had been dealt
with through CMEC, perhaps for a large number of years, it is
conceivable that it would stop when they were 20, even if there were
still an obligation for aliment to continue after that, the result
being that the person would be required thereafter to raise an action
of their own in the courts to seek aliment from one or both parents and
to start all over again, with all the difficulties that could
ensue.
Although I
appreciate that the cases in which such a circumstance might arise are
few and far between, there is a contradiction in this provision. Will
the Minister consider the definition of “child” and,
perhaps, include in regulations some reference to the fact that in
Scotland things are different and allow the definition under the 1985
Act to be carried into the Bill in respect of the Scottish
situation?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I appreciate the hon. Member for Angus raising
that point. I recognise that in Scotland children have different
rights. However, our agreeing to his amendment would have at least one
perverse outcome under the law that we are seeking to pass here and,
for that reason, as well as others, I hope that he will reconsider. Let
me expand on that.
As
the hon. Gentleman has said, under Scots law courts can make orders for
aliment to be paid in respect of a person until they are 25, where they
are in education or training for employment or for a trade, profession
or vocation. That measure is based on the age by which a person would
normally be expected to have completed their education, including any
trade apprenticeships, and no longer need parental
support.
Under the
Children Act 1989, the courts in England and Wales have the power to
make orders for maintenance on an application by a person over 18 whose
parents are separated and who is receiving instruction at an
educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade,
profession or vocation. Thus orders for maintenance can be sought in
England and Wales for a similar period that aliment might be sought in
Scotland.
We would not
want to widen the definition of “child” in the way in
which the hon. Gentleman has suggested for child maintenance purposes
to define young adults substantially older than the age of 20 as
“children”. Doing so would extend maintenance
dramatically for some young people. Furthermore, when a non-resident
parent themselves falls within the meaning of “child”
under the Act, they are exempt from paying maintenance. If the
amendment were agreed to, legislation would have to be amended so that
children born to parents up to age 24 would not have to wait until
their non-resident parent reached 25 to get maintenance from them.
Amending legislation in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has
suggested would cause more complication to the system than we have now,
and we want to avoid that. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that
and will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Weir:
I hear what the Minister has said, and I understand
the difficulties. It looks like over-20s in Scotland will still have to
go to the courts in the few cases where the provision applies. However,
I accept the
Minister’s reasoning. The amendment would
have a slightly perverse application in respect of allowing parents
under 25 to escape, and I would not wish to impose that upon the
nation.
I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
37
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 38
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 17 October 2007 |