---

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. As usual, it was a model of lucidity, making everything seem extremely simple. However, those of us new to this area do not find these matters simple. We have nine substantive regulations amending nine sets of orders under the power of two Acts, one of which is amended by the other. They deal with the old scheme of child support and the new scheme of child support and the transitional provisions. If that is not complicated, I do not know what is. However, I am learning that complexity is a hallmark of work and pensions matters. I am hoping to acquire a fraction of the Minister's expertise one day.

Perhaps I may refer to the computer system. The Minister referred to the Statement last month by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place. We learned that there had been further delays in implementing the systems, which were due to come onstream first in October 2001, then this month. They have now been delayed sine die. When does the Minister expect the systems to become operational? That is an important issue for those waiting for the new child support system.

In addition to an estimate of timescale—I find it curious that no estimate has yet been given of when the system is expected to be fully operational—will the Minister say something about the reason for the delay? My noble friend Lord Higgins at Second Reading of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act

11 Apr 2002 : Column 595

2000 two years ago, warned of the problems of running two different systems and an inevitably complex transitional system. Is the problem in implementing the new system its complexity? If complexity is not the root cause, will the Minister explain what the problems are?

I turn to the regulations. I welcome the amendments in the regulations which implement disregards for payments under the variant CJD compensation scheme. They are highly desirable amendments. We congratulate the Government for proposing them.

I have two detailed questions. First, in Regulation 2 there is a provision—which the Minister explained a moment ago—for maintenance calculations to be revised from the beginning where a man turns out not to be the parent of a child. That seems sensible. Does that provision apply only to the new scheme of child support and not to the previous scheme? If so, will the Minister say why?

My second question relates to Regulation 5, which allows the enhanced disability premium in income support to be included in a parent's exempt income, to which the Minister referred. That is clearly to be welcomed, but does it apply only to the former child support scheme and not the new one? Again, if so, will the Minister say why? With those small technical queries we welcome the regulations.

Earl Russell: My Lords, Frederick the Great would ask his new recruits three questions. First, "How long have you been in the service?"; secondly, "How old are you?"; thirdly, "Are you content with your officers and your pay?". One of his recruits, being Silesian, spoke nothing but Polish, so he was taught the answers to the questions by heart.

But Frederick the Great chose to ask the questions in the wrong order. "How old are you?" "Eighteen months." "How long have you been in the service?" "Eighteen years." "One of us is mad!" "Both, your Majesty."

Approaching the regulations, I feel rather like that. I do not know whether I have discovered a hornets' nest or a wasps' nest. I do not know whether I am being extremely stupid or whether a cock-up has happened at the administrative end.

I have no objection to the contents of the regulations. They are benevolent in intention and many will be benevolent in effect. That is not the problem. My problem is what is being amended. We know that on 20th March the right honourable Mr Alistair Darling deferred the introduction of the new scheme because of a computer problem. Computer problems are far too common with government, but I am the last person in the world with any authority for saying how to deal with them, being completely computer-illiterate. I regret that I have no helpful suggestions.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, it is clear that the right honourable Mr Darling is not at all certain when he intends to introduce the new scheme. He is clearly not satisfied with the service he is receiving from EDS. On 20th March, he said,

11 Apr 2002 : Column 596

"the contract with EDS specified that the Department will not pay for the computer system until it meets the standard required, and that remains the position".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/02; col. 316.]

One may say that the former Department of Social Security and the Department for Work and Pensions' faith in EDS has continued in the face of a remarkable amount of evidence to the contrary.

Be that as it may, we must consider what is being amended. The Explanatory Memorandum, for which I thank the Minister warmly, makes—as I thought—a clear distinction between the existing scheme and the new scheme introduced by the Social Security Act 2000, which, as I understood it, was to come into force next April, but now is not to. According to paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

"The draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002 make amendments to a number of the sets of regulations which govern child support. Most of the provisions amend regulations governing the new child support scheme. Some amend the transitional provisions which provide for the conversion of cases from the existing to the new scheme. A small number amend existing scheme regulations".

I should be grateful if the Minister would distinguish the small number which amend existing regulations—with which we have no problem—from those which amend transitional provisions and tell us how they are affected by the decision to postpone the transition, and those which amend rules not yet in force. I have trouble in interpreting the Explanatory Memorandum in that it is not dated. I do not know whether it was written before or after 20th March. That appears to make a considerable difference as to how it should be read.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand the push of the noble Earl's original question about which provisions apply to the current scheme, the transitional scheme and so on, but why does he believe that the events of 20th March make any difference to his question?

Earl Russell: My Lords, I want to know which regulations and laws the provisions are intended to change; whether the intention was to change what is now not coming into effect or whether it was to change what is in effect and therefore can be changed.

I understand that one may make a change with reference to the future only. However, Regulation 1(3) specifies that,

"These Regulations shall come into force as follows—

(a) subject to sub-paragraph(b), these Regulations shall come into force on the day after the day that they are made". Sub-paragraph (b) excepts Regulations 2 and 4(a), both of which the Minister helpfully explained. If the regulations are to come into force tomorrow, and the laws which they are to amend are not to come into effect until an undetermined time in the future, I do not see what is being attempted. One can provide that a law will be amended when introduced. I understand that; it is daily practice. One can amend a law already in force. I do not understand how one can amend with

11 Apr 2002 : Column 597

effect from today a law which will not come into force until tomorrow. That is my problem. That is where I do not know whether I am being extremely stupid or whether there has been an administrative cock-up. I do not know whether I have discovered a hornets' nest or a wasps' nest.

While consideration is being given to that question, there are one or two provisions in the regulations to which I wish to draw attention. I hope that the Minister now understands why the question of the dating before or after 20th March is material in this respect. I am interested in the proposal to allow a correction where it turns out that a person is not the father of the child. That is very clearly equitable, not to say just. What really strikes me is the legislative universe into which we are moving whereby we have to invoke the full panoply of legislation in order to make it possible to cease charging a man for a child of whom he turns out not to be the father. This is a piling of Pelion upon Ossa in terms of regulation, which leads to a process that goes on and on.

When the Minister was doing this before, I remember describing the process as "piddling", as the garage man said to my father-in-law when he tried to top up his radiator when it was almost full. I believe that that term is in fact apt. As always, the wording of the regulations leaves a great deal to be desired. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of some of the regulations. However, although the Minister explained Regulation 4(a) perfectly well, she did so in English. I am not sure that I can say the same for what is written in the regulations. For example, it reads:

"(a) after sub-paragraph (a), there shall be inserted—

'(aa) where regulation 8(1) of the Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases Regulations applies (persons treated as non-resident parents), a parent of or a person who provides day to day care for the child in respect of whom a maintenance calculation has been applied for or has been treated as applied for or is or has been in force, with respect to the matter listed in sub-paragraph (1) of regulation 3(1);' and".

After reading that passage five times, it seemed to me that it probably meant what the Minister said it meant. I should like to thank her very much for the translation, but it should not have been necessary.

I wonder whether the Minister is now in a position to tell us what these regulations are amending; for example, whether it is existing law, future law, or transitional provisions. Alternatively, if it is a mixture, can the noble Baroness tell us what proportions apply?

---