---

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this is a convenient time to break. I suggest that we return to this business not before 8.30. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002

7.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations make a number of amendments to nine of the sets of regulations that govern child support. This package is largely made up of amendments to regulations governing the new child support scheme and to the transitional regulations which relate to the transfer of cases from the current scheme to the new arrangements. The transfer will take place in due course, when we are satisfied that the new arrangements are working well.

In addition, the package includes a small number of amendments to the current scheme. They are designed to protect the interests of parents who find themselves in certain specific circumstances, as I shall explain. It is important that we provide such protection for those clients who will continue to be subject to the current rules for some time yet.

Your Lordships will recall the Statement made in another place on 20th March about the introduction of the new and simpler child support scheme. I have nothing to add at this stage in the way of extra information except to assure your Lordships of my intention to keep this House updated on progress towards its implementation. Obviously, if I can answer any queries I shall be happy to do so.

Many of the amendments in this set of regulations make minor technical corrections. Others simply serve to reflect the intended detail of the new scheme legislation. In the limited time available this evening your Lordships would not be well served by my explaining the intentions of each amendment one by one, and they were not discussed in any detail in the other place. However, with the permission of the House, I shall draw attention to some of the more significant changes, which I am sure your Lordships will agree are benevolent.

Regulations 3 and 9 relate to departures and variations. These amendments relate to the disregard of vCJD compensation payments. One of the "current

11 Apr 2002 : Column 592

scheme" amendments to which I referred a moment ago relates to the departure scheme. Under the current rules it is possible to depart from the standard formula assessment in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances in which a departure direction can be give is where, for example, a party to the maintenance assessment—that is, the non-resident parent—has an asset worth more than £10,000 which is capable of producing income but which is not being used to do so. Regulation 3 amends the current scheme so that certain payments made under the compensation scheme for victims (and families of victims) of variant CJD will not be regarded as assets for the purposes of departure. In other words, they are simply disregarded and therefore not taken into account to affect upwards the liability.

Regulation 9 therefore includes a corresponding amendment in respect of the variations scheme which will, under the new rules, replace the departure scheme. So the same disregard under the current scheme will be carried forward into the new scheme. I am sure your Lordships will welcome that.

Those payments are made in recognition of the pain and suffering endured by the victims of this terrible disease—and by their families—and are intended to help reduce any financial hardship they may face. I am sure your Lordships will agree that such payments should be ignored in the calculation of child maintenance in circumstances where they would be disregarded when considering entitlement to income support.

Regulation 5 reflects the income support enhanced disability premium in exempt income under the current scheme. So a further current scheme amendment under regulation 5 concerns the calculation of the exempt income figure. This represents the income which parents need for their own personal expenses and it also includes allowances for any of their children who are living with them. It is therefore not taken into account when making a maintenance assessment.

Regulation 5 amends the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations which govern the assessment of liability in the current scheme and include the rules for calculating the exempt income of each parent. The exempt income figure is based on income support rates. Last year, as part of the Government's commitment to provide additional help for the most severely disabled, the Government introduced the disability income guarantee, which provides for a new higher rate of premium in the income-related benefits. The amendment provides for an amount equivalent to the enhanced disability premium to be included in a parent's exempt income calculation. It applies where either that child, or its parent, if they were on income support, would satisfy the conditions for payment of the premium. Again, this is another benevolent activity where this income is effectively disregarded.

I turn to Regulation 4, which relates to information, evidence and disclosure, and better information gathering. We are all agreed that children are entitled

11 Apr 2002 : Column 593

to the financial and emotional support of their parents. Whether they live together or apart, both parents are responsible for supporting their children. Unfortunately, not all parents share that view and some do all they can to avoid their responsibilities. Regulation 4 therefore amends the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations. It adds to the categories of persons who are required to provide information or evidence for child support purposes and brings Northern Ireland and Scotland into line with England and Wales. It will mean, among other things, that for both current and new scheme cases the Child Support Agency will be able to seek information from driver and vehicle licensing in Northern Ireland and from the Scottish and Northern Ireland prison services. Again, it is a straightforward adjustment as to from whom we can seek information.

Regulation 8 relates to transitional provisions, in this instance the extending of appeal time limits. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is another benevolent change. Regulation 8 of this package makes a number of amendments to the complex rules governing the transfer or conversion of the existing caseload to the new scheme as set out in the Child Support (Transitional Provisions) Regulations.

One of the more notable changes is an amendment to the time limit for appeals against a conversion decision—that is, the decision setting out someone's liability under the new scheme. Parents will be advised of their new scheme liability in good time before the new rules actually apply to them. It may be six months ahead or even longer. Normally the appeal time clock would start ticking from the time they are notified, even though that may be six or nine months ahead of when the conversion actually takes place. They may then find that by the time they are affected, the clock has run out on the time limit for appeals. That seemed to me to be unfair. They were notified well in advance of when it would come into effect and, particularly if self-employed, they may not realise the extent to which the clock is ticking and how they may have lost their ability to appeal. Therefore I sought and succeeded in extracting from the appeal system an amendment which provides that the deadline for appeals against a conversion decision will be extended from one month after the conversion is given—that is, notified—to one month after conversion actually takes place. In other words, parents will be able to retain the right to appeal from the time they first learn about their conversion decision right up until one month after it takes effect. That is simply because, unlike almost every other scheme, there is a long period of notification and people should not lose their right of appeal simply because they can assume they can appeal once it takes effect rather than once they have been notified.

Regulation 2—decisions and appeals—makes a number of amendments to the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations which set out the rules for revising and superseding child support decisions. This is about the information needed when a decision-maker is adjusting the liability. Among other things, the amendment provides for a maintenance calculation to be revised

11 Apr 2002 : Column 594

back to the beginning in cases where a person who had been named as the non-resident parent turns out not to be the parent of the child, usually following DNA testing but not invariably so.

When a person with care applies for a maintenance calculation (maintenance assessment in the current scheme) the CSA will make one unless the non-resident parent denies parentage before the calculation is made. If the non-resident parent does so deny, then the agency can only go ahead with a maintenance calculation in certain prescribed circumstances; for example, where he has adopted the child. If the non-resident parent denies parentage after a calculation has been made, he may undertake CSA DNA testing or apply to the court for a declaration of non-parentage. If the outcome of either is that he is not the child's father, any maintenance calculation will be revised back to the beginning. Again, this is a benevolent change.

Those are the main changes. Most of the rest are tiny tidying up drafting changes. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that the disregard of disability payments, the disregard of vCJD payments, the extended period for appealing and the right for a person to have the maintenance calculation revised if he is found not to be the child's father are benevolent changes. As a result, I hope that the House will give the regulations full support.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

---