New Clause
17
Disclosure
of information to parent with
care
‘Information which is
held for the purposes of any functions relating to child support by the
Commission may be supplied to the parent with care or person with care
for the purposes of the exercise of any such
functions.’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
4.45
pm
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
is an attempt to get a little bit of equity between the court-based
system and the operation of the commission on the amount of full and
frank disclosure that is made between the parties. It is proposed for
the commission that the parent with care will be deprived of the
opportunity to check that the information given is correct or complete
and therefore will not be able to evaluate whether the commission has
made an appropriate decision by reference to the information provided.
In that context, will the Minister tell the Committee what will be the
position in relation to HMRC and its usual, quite proper rules of
privacy regarding income? We touched on that area in earlier debates,
but this is a useful opportunity to revisit
it.
The new clause
would help parents with care to take ownership of their cases and
ensure that they are not kept in the dark in respect of any aspect of
them. Then, armed with that information, they would be able to decide
whether they wanted to apply for a variation. I hope that the Minister
will look favourably on the new
clause.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I will try to reassure the hon. Gentleman on
this new clause. We already have the powers to make regulations to
decide what information can be disclosed to parents under the 1991 Act.
Current regulations give the Child Support Agency the power to release
all details relevant to the maintenance calculation, including the
income of the non-resident parent. Furthermore, the Data Protection Act
1998 allows both parents access to all the details of their case, as it
relates to them. Parents with care have access to data protection
prints setting out the maintenance calculation for their case, which
can be used to highlight discrepancies between expected and actual
maintenance liabilities. As such, parents with care have access to all
the information that they require to query details of the maintenance
calculation that they believe to be
flawed.
New clause 17
would allow the commission to disclose inappropriate information, such
as the address or contact details of the non-resident parent, to the
parent with care, with little additional prospect of an improved
maintenance decision coming from that
disclosure. We must ask whether the damage to the privacy of the
non-resident parent, which is important, and the opening up of the
commission to the threat of legal challenge could justify such a
change. The use of
HMRC income information as the basis for maintenance calculations under
the new statutory scheme would also be affected by the powers that the
new clause would provide. The use of such a broad power of information
disclosure could endanger the flow of information from HMRC to the
commission. Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act
2005 in effect prohibits the disclosure of income information that has
not been used for the maintenance calculation. As such, the existence
of the power under the new clause would perhaps prohibit HMRC from
providing the commission with vital income information—the
opposite of what I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to be the
case.
Although it is
true that parents with care have access to a much broader range of
information once the appeals process has begun, that is the appropriate
forum for access to that type of sensitive information. A closely
monitored legal environment is a far more appropriate domain for the
release of that information than unregulated disclosure by the
commission. Although it is appropriate at the appeals stage for both
parties to have access to a wider range of information to ensure that
disputes can be resolved, we do not believe that disclosing that type
of information in all cases, the vast majority of which will never go
to appeal, should be considered. I hope that, in view of those points,
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
motion.
Andrew
Selous:
I am reassured by what the Minister has said on
this occasion, because he put it clearly on the record that all
necessary information in respect of the issues that I have discussed
could be transferred. On the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
19
Entitlement
of parent with care
‘The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the parent
with care to—
(a) make
representations, oral, written or otherwise, in enforcement proceedings
commenced under this Act and to attend enforcement proceedings hearings
brought under this Act, and
(b)
apply to a Magistrates Court or an Appeal Tribunal for collection or
enforcement pursuant to sections 20 to 28 of this
Act.’.—[Paul
Rowen.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
New clause 19
has two parts: proposed new subsection (a) would give the parent with
care the right to make representations, orally or in writing, to a
court or appeal tribunal, if enforcement action is planned; proposed
new subsection (b) would give the parent
with care the right to apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal
in order to make their own enforcement
actions. It is ironic
that if the commission or CSA were to initiate an enforcement action,
the person directly affected—the parent with care—who
might have important information about the financial position or assets
of the non-resident parent cannot make any direct representations to
the court or tribunal. That seems to go against any sense of natural
justice, given that they will be directly affected by the enforcement
action. Any decision taken in the court or tribunal will have a major
impact on the income that they
receive.
During
previous discussions, we talked about the small number of non-resident
parents who have hidden assets. However, the assets of most other
non-resident parents will be more visible, but not necessarily of a
type that is reported to the commission for the purposes of
maintenance. We should not exclude the parent with care from making
representations. I am not saying that they should make the
determination, but given that they and the child in their care will be
directly affected by the decision of a court or tribunal, they should
be allowed to make
representations.
Proposed
new subsection (b) would provide for what the R (Kehoe) v.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions judgment specifically
excluded. At the moment, a parent with care has no right to recover
child care maintenance direct from the non-resident parent. That right
was removed by the Child Support Act 1991. I accept that in the vast
majority of cases a parent with care would not want to initiate their
own action, but I am sure that there are examples of parents with care
feeling aggrieved with the CSA, as it is currently operated, for making
an enforcement action that did not take account of everything. The
second part of the new clause would give them the right to initiate
their own action, which we think is a fundamental
right.
Proposed new
subsection (a) would allow them to make representations, and proposed
new subsection (b) would allow them to take action, if they felt that
that taken by the commission was not appropriate. If exercised, those
rights would be important to the parent with care. They might well not
be used often; I suspect that the first right would be used a lot more
often than the second. Nevertheless, given that they are directly
affected by enforcement decisions, they should be able to make
representations. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine that
matter and see what we are trying to
achieve.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I welcome the opportunity to discuss new clause
19. The commission will need to keep both parents informed. However, we
must be clear: the commission’s role is to consider the position
of both parents and the welfare of the child or children involved. Its
duty is not to act solely as the representative of the parent with
care.
Clauses 20 to 28
contain a number of administrative provisions to streamline the
enforcement process and enable the commission to take swift and
effective enforcement action. The parent with care has the opportunity
to contest maintenance calculations at an earlier stage, and giving
them the opportunity to make
additional representations will not assist the court
further in making the right decision; indeed, it could result in a
delay to the enforcement process and incur additional
costs. Where
enforcement hearings are held in open court, the parent with care can
watch the proceedings, although they have no right to make
representations to the court. In practice, however, magistrates courts
usually hear such cases in the family court, where they have a power to
exclude persons who are not directly involved in the case. The court
has discretion to permit a person who has adequate grounds for
attending to be present, although they still do not have the right to
make
representations.
Subsection
(b) of the new clause would give the parent with care the right to
apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal to effect collection
and enforcement measures under clauses 20 to 28. That
would not be feasible, however, as most of those
measures would be administrative and the responsibility of the
commission, not the courts.
The new
clause would therefore delay the enforcement process and greatly affect
the court’s business. In view of that, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will agree to withdraw the
motion.
Paul
Rowen:
I have listened to what the Minister has said, but
I cannot agree with him. He has not explained how allowing the parent
with care to make written or oral representations at a hearing that is
already scheduled could delay the decision by the court or the
tribunal. As he has correctly stated, the parent with care already has
the right to attend, but like someone present at their own funeral,
they cannot say anything. In this case, the parent with care should be
allowed to say something or to put in a written
application. I cannot understand how that would delay the
proceedings; it should merely ensure that the court or the tribunal has
all the information in front of it before making its
decision.
My second
point related to whether someone could initiate an action themselves.
That is likely to occur in only a small number of cases, but it is
nevertheless important that people should have the right to initiate
such an action. I would therefore like to press the motion to a
vote.
Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
22
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
22
Right
of appeal
‘Parents with care
shall have the right to seek enforcement by magistrates’ court
(or, in Scotland by the Sheriff) of the Commission’s assessment
of the non-resident parents debt, if there has not been full recovery
of the debt by the Commission within one year of the Commission
commencing enforcement action to recover the debts
concerned.’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
I am sure that I
can see a glint in your eye, Mr. Taylor, as we reach the
last new clause on the amendment paper. New clause 22 is similar to new
clause 19, which we have just debated, but it relates to cases in which
the commission has been trying for more than a year without success to
recover debts owed to a parent with
care.
5
pm
The new clause
would give parents with care the power, if they chose to use
it—it would not force them to do anything—to approach a
magistrates court or the sheriff in Scotland to seek enforcement of the
debt owed to them. That useful measure would enable the parent with
care to take some control over their case and would provide an
incentive for CMEC to ensure that it was as successful as possible in
collecting debt. I commend the new clause to the
Minister.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I thank the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire for tabling the new clause, which provides me with the
opportunity to allay concerns—I hope—regarding the future
enforcement of child maintenance. It sets out circumstances, as he has
described, where the parent with care could enforce a child maintenance
debt.
I remind the
hon. Gentleman that the provisions in the Bill will support parents
with care in choosing how to pursue child maintenance initially. We are
establishing the information support service, revoking section 6 of the
Child Support Act 1991, to give parents with care the chance to take
greater control over their maintenance arrangements. Where a parent
with care chooses the commission to calculate and collect child
maintenance, the new powers provided in clauses 19 to 28 will
supplement the existing powers to ensure a faster and more
wide-reaching enforcement process.
The commission will have a
range of options available to enable it to enforce the maintenance
payments, including the deduction of earnings order, the current
account deduction order and/or the lump sum deduction order, all of
which will only be operable by the commission. Similarly, only the
commission will be able to make an administrative liability order,
which will allow for the use of bailiffs and, in England and Wales,
applications to the county court for third-party debt orders and
charging orders that can lead to forced sale of property. Where the
non-resident parent is wilfully refusing or culpably neglecting to pay
maintenance, the commission can force the surrender
of passports or apply to the courts for disqualification from driving,
for a curfew order or even for committal to
prison. In view of the
extensive range of provisions available to the commission, I urge the
hon. Gentleman to consider the circumstances under which the parent
with care, on pursuing maintenance in the magistrates courts after one
year of enforcement action by the commission, would be any more likely
to have success.
I
understand the sentiment behind the new clause. Since its inception in
1993, the Child Support Agency has, in too many cases, been slow or has
failed to enforce maintenance as assessed. However, allowing the parent
with care effectively to take over enforcement action from the
commission where it has not collected all moneys due could act as a
disincentive to the commission to pursue its more difficult cases. I
ask the Committee to consider the wider-reaching impacts of the new
clause. It could risk complication and duplication in the courts,
without any significant benefit to the children, and it could be
inequitable in cases where the non-resident parent owes maintenance to
more than one parent with care and/or the Secretary of State. In view
of that, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause to a
Division.
Andrew
Selous:
I have listened carefully to the Minister. He gave
a summary of the CMEC’s powers to enforce and collect debt and
to ensure that debt does not accumulate in the first place, the vast
majority of which we Conservatives are happy with and welcome. However,
none of what he said in respect of those matters touched on what new
clause 22 is trying to do, which is to address a situation where all
those powers have failed and the commission has had a full year to
pursue debt that has accumulated in spite of the various powers that it
will have. Many parents with care have, under the CSA, felt too
powerless to do anything themselves to recover the huge amounts of debt
owed to them.
It was
only in the last sentence or so that the Minister made me think twice
about the new clause—when he mentioned the possibility of the
power it contains being used to pursue a non-resident parent whose
affairs were complicated and who had perhaps become a parent with care
himself. In the light of that, I am prepared not to press the new
clause, although I may perhaps think about taking it up again in
another format. However, given what he has said, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I beg to move,
That certain written evidence
already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the
Committee.
Question
accordingly agreed
to.
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the
House.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
We have reached the end of the Committee stage,
and, in one sense, it has been a long journey because we started on 19
July. In another sense, it has not been such a long journey, because we
took a long time off in the middle of that and managed to get through
the Bill in 12 sittings.
May I first thank you,
Mr. Taylor, for chairing our proceedings and for the fine
manner with which you have done it? I also extend my thanks to your
colleague, Mr. Chope, for the sittings that he chaired. I
owe thanks to several other people, including my hon. Friend the Member
for Caerphilly, who has kept us whipped and in order, and the
Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the
Member for Stirling, who took us through important clauses relating to
enforcement, debt and those today that related to mesothelioma. I am
grateful to her.
I am
grateful also to the leading spokespeople for the other
parties—to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for
approaching the Bill constructively and with great seriousness and
thought. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus, who has been
similarly assiduous on many points about which he had concerns. He
contributed much value to our proceedings. I was going to extend
similar thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey, but I guess that he is polishing his CV. Therefore, I will
extend those thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale instead, who has
borne the brunt of that role.
I want to thank my hon. Friend
the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who has given me support as my
Parliamentary Private Secretary during the course of proceedings. She
has had to be ready at any time to supply me with mid-flight refuelling
and has been ever expectant. I would like to pay tribute to my hon.
Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for his
contribution, in particular to our debates on mesothelioma. He denied
that he was an expert and then proved that the opposite was the case by
speaking articulately and with great knowledge about that important
subject.
I also thank
all of the other members of the Committee for their attendance, support
and contributions. All of our sittings have been, without exception,
constructive and extremely good natured, and the Bill has been pretty
well scrutinised. As a result of our proceedings, we have collectively
improved the Bill, and that is one of the main purposes of these
sittings. In that respect, it is a job well done.
Finally, I want to thank the
Bill team, who have been with us throughout, were involved long before
our proceedings, and have been a superb support to me and my hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary. We are very grateful to them for their
immense hard work in bringing this important legislation though in such
good shape.
This is a
tough area in which to legislate and a difficult part of the welfare
world. We are legislating in this area only because of such things as
relationship breakdowns, emotion and tension, and as a result of the
unfortunate fact that some parents wish to be non-compliant, preferring
instead not to face up to their responsibilities. If everyone always
faced up to their responsibilities, we probably would not need the
Bill.
We are dealing
with human failure—it is not for us to judge, but it
happens—and it is inevitably difficult to deal with. We know
that there is no perfect solution. I was not here at the time, but the
same things could have been said about the legislation that brought the
CSA into existence. That had cross-party support and many
similar things may have been said about why it had to be brought into
being. It has not had a happy history, which is why we are now taking a
completely new approach to trying to secure a reliable and workable
system of child support. We are building on the lessons
learned from the CSA’s history. I stress again that the failings
of that agency are in no regard to be visited on its staff, either then
or now. They have been working with and trying to make the best of a
broken system. They want nothing more than to be part of a good,
efficient and effective child maintenance and support system that
delivers for the children. I thank them for all their efforts in
working with the current system, but also for the help that they gave
Ministers as we considered the reforms that led to the introduction of
CMEC. We have engaged with them and drawn on their knowledge and
experience, and they are as hopeful as we are that we have found a good
solution.
It is a
fundamental change—a big change—that relies much more on
extending choice to parents and pulling the state out of arrangements
when perhaps the state should not be there. Hopefully, it will give
much more support and guidance to the people to make those choices and
put in place the arrangements necessary to support their
children.
We are also
significantly strengthening enforcement. Unfortunately, as I said
earlier, we sometimes have to deal with those non-resident
parents who would rather not face up to their responsibilities and
who, in so doing, damage and harm the reputation of the
countless non-resident parents who consistently, steadily and
faithfully honour their obligations to their children. We must not
forget them simply because the minority behave in that way. We should
not cast aspersions on the vast majority who do exactly the right
thing.
We are trying
to learn from the lessons of the past in making these big changes,
which are backed with enforcement to ensure that we do the best we can
for the main people involved—the children. We hope and believe
that the commission has a far more effective structure and organisation
in order to get the flow of maintenance that is so essential to the
children, and it is on their behalf that we act.
I thank all hon. Members again
for their contributions. Together, we have improved the Bill. I think
that we will have provided a good service for many thousands of
children in the future.
Andrew
Selous:
I begin by thanking you, Mr. Taylor,
for the way in which you have kept us in order—firmly and
fairly, but always with good humour. I put those compliments on the
record also for your co-Chairman, Mr. Chope, who chaired
some of our earlier proceedings. I also thank the police, the
Hansard writers, the Clerks, the Door Keepers and those
officials without whom we the Committee could not have
worked—people who are not in the front line, and whose words
will not appear in the Official Report, but who we all realise
are essential to our proceedings and without whom this place could not
work. I say that as someone who sometimes queues for tea for his own
staff.
Earlier in our proceedings, just
before the summer recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, said that he
would have a summer of reflection—a chance to reflect on what
had been said up till that point. That was the case, but there are
still a few weeks for an autumn of discernment as we run up to Report
and Third Reading.
I
hope that the Minister and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling, will reflect on
our debates. It is not always easy or appropriate in Committee to think
deeply about technical and complicated issues, but I am sure that I
speak for all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches when I say that we
want to make the Bill work. We supported it when we thought it should
be supported, and we tried to be constructive when we thought things
could be done
better.
5.15
pm
I thank the
Minister for his kind words. Both Ministers have been courteous and
have unfailingly taken interventions, which have often been long,
complicated and technical. I have watched the odd moment of slight
terror as they turned to their officials hoping for a piece of paper
coming towards them, but our proceedings have been seamless, as
Hansard will
show.
I thank my hon.
Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who
has important responsibilities for disabilities and who has
assisted me throughout long periods of our proceedings. I also thank
our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who has kept us
in order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who sits
on the Work and Pensions Committee and whose advice I always
welcome.
The Selection
Committee has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire
to another important Committee, and I want to put it on the record that
she is doing important work further along the corridor. I am
particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry for his
wise and sage advice. He has followed these issues for many
years.
I want to put
on the record the fact that the staff of the CSA have laboured under
huge difficulties to try to make it work in years gone by. They, too,
have shared the frustrations of all hon. Members as we have dealt with
such issues in our constituency mailbags. It is not their fault that
the computers have not worked as well as they would have liked or they
have not had the tools at their disposal to make enforcement work as
well as it should have done. It is important to put that on the
record.
Paul
Rowen:
I echo some of those thanks, particularly those to
you, Mr. Taylor, and to Mr. Chope for chairing
our proceedings so well. We have had 12 sittings and kept to schedule,
but no one would complain that they have not had the opportunity to
express a point of
view.
I thank all
staff of the House who have assisted you— Hansard and so
on—and who have played an important part. On
behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey, I thank
the two Ministers who have answered the points that we have raised. We
have not always agreed on the substance, but we have always been
assured that we would receive
answers. This is my
first experience of a work and pensions Bill—it will probably
not be the last—and, as other hon. Members have said, it covers
hugely important issues. The CSA is important and affects many of our
constituents. Its staff have laboured on the huge task of getting it
right. I know from my office’s daily contact with it that they
strive with a system that is broke and not working, but they ensure
that it delivers.
I
hope that with further changes that we might make as the Bill moves
through the House, we will have the basis of a workable solution. I am
sure that every hon. Member intends to ensure that this aspect of
legislation is dealt with and works properly. That was the intention of
the Act that set up the CSA. It has not worked, and I hope that the
Bill puts that in
perspective. I thank all hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members,
who have supported me and assisted in moving important
amendments.
The
Chairman:
I shall certainly pass on the sentiments of
those who have spoken to my fellow Chairman, Mr. Chope. I
express my gratitude to him for chairing two sittings at very late
notice, and I thank the Clerk to the Committee for his unfailing
patience and excellent advice. The legislative ship, after a long
voyage of 13 weeks and 12 sittings, straddling a summer recess, is
docking four hours and 40 minutes earlier than the target out time.
That is due in no small measure to the spirit and good order that has
characterised the debate, for which Mr. Chope and I are most
grateful.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Bill, as
amended, to be
reported.
Committee
rose at twenty-one minutes past Five
o’clock
.
| 
