| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I remember once asking the Minister, as being learned in both points, to act as interpreter between government and educational institutions. I am tempted to think that we see here the first fruits of her acceding to that request.
I entirely welcome what is in these regulations. Although I have a fair amount to say, it is almost entirely about what is not there because the interface between social security support and education support
is a very ill-constructed jigsaw—the sort of thing that used to drive me absolutely screaming mad when I was four.The immediate concession is of course entirely welcome. The fact that one often cannot return until the beginning of the next academic year is very like the fact that one cannot introduce a new parliamentary Bill in August; there is a calendar from which we cannot get away. That arrangement produced a period during which people have been without any support at all. The Social Security Advisory Committee in 2000 enunciated the principle that everybody should be eligible to receive either educational support or social security support. That is a good principle but we are still a fairly long way from achieving it.
The Minister said that she cannot imagine any circumstances in which people might want the provision to extend for more than a year. I can imagine such a situation—I currently have a relevant case before me. The problem is that of intermittent mental illness from which the man made a recovery, relapsed and is now again unfit. That problem exists and will recur.
The NUS welcomes the consultation that the Government have undertaken with it and so do I. I do so in my capacity as a life member of my college's students' union, so I have a special entitlement to do so.
Some, but not very many, people will be worse off as a result of the changes. I refer, for example, to students with disabilities who are in halls of residence. It is also good that courses can be recognised as not always being done in strict multiples of one year. In further education in particular that is welcome.
There is still a problem with postgraduates writing up. The department's concept of education is still based on the notion of the course and assumes that everybody is always engaged in classwork. That is not at all the case with postgraduates who are writing up. The Minister's special skills in communication—she is, if I may say so, doctor utriusque juris; that is, doctor in either law—might enable her to do something rather useful. There is still a problem with lone parents whose entitlement to social security benefit ceases immediately that the child reaches 16. That could, without undue profligacy with Treasury money, be allowed to continue until the parent finishes the course. There are cases of lone parents in the middle of a degree being required to go to work-focused interviews because their youngest child has reached 16. That was not the intention of work-focused interviews and I hope that the arrangement will stop.
There is also a problem about the time when support stops. Social security support stops under the regulations on 1st September but the terms of many colleges do not begin until quite a bit later than that. Local authorities are by no means always prompt in paying grant cheques. A good deal of my time each year is taken up dealing with that problem. There is apt to be a period of three or four weeks during which the person is absolutely without support, and that is not a good thing.
I turn to another point that is worthy of some thought. On average rents, as the NUS has found by survey, and on an average loan of £3,815 a year, £29 a week is left over for everything else. The applicable amount under income support would be £42.70, so there is a shortfall of £13.76. That, for most people, is made good by parents; in fact, it is more than made good by parents. The Government rightly concern themselves with the small proportion of children from poorer families who are going to university and they should consider those figures. Frankly, I would advise those who cannot get support from their parents not to go to university at present in their own interest. I should advise them to save up money for several years and to go to university as a mature student. If the Government find that universities are not getting a larger intake of working class students, they might, before they try to cast out the mote in universities' eyes, try to cast out the beam in their own eye.
I am afraid that I have asked the Minister to do quite a lot of work. She has done a good deal already and she has done that well. I hope that she will be as successful with the rest.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness know more about this matter than I do. I shall detain the House for just a moment or two.
I have one point which I hope the noble Baroness will clarify. As I understand it, the powers relate largely to lone parents and disabled students who become unwell and interrupt their studies. The Minister is shaking her head; in which case, I misunderstood the situation. It is not clear why in the circumstances that are understandably covered by the regulations, those people may be entitled to jobseeker's allowance, when, presumably, they will eventually resume their studies. It would appear to be more appropriate if they had some benefit other than jobseeker's allowance, which presumably relates to only a short period.
Earl Russell: My Lords, what normally happens if people are away from university for six weeks or so is that they cannot come back and they get a temporary job; they seek jobs, and if they seek jobs they should be allowed the jobseeker's allowance.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in that case, I need not wait for a reply from the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is exactly right. The assumption is that JSA will kick in when the student was well but unable to re-enter university. I shook my head because lone parents can now be eligible for benefits in certain circumstances. In these regulations, we are seeking to ensure that we do not artificially time-limit someone's eligibility for JSA in the situation in which one is past the point of the beginning of the academic year and the educational institution said that the person may not return until later in the year. I gave the example of the prelim course.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: there are still issues involving the need for seamlessness between the support that is offered by my department and that offered by DfES in those circumstances. The noble Earl gave me a shopping list of matters that are not in the regulations, which I need to look at. I shall take that away and come back to him to explain where we are in relation to any of those points and to establish whether I can help. We are dealing for the most part with very small numbers of students in those circumstances. One piece of news that he might find of interest is the fact that any lone parent or any full-time student who, in terms of his or her hours of work, qualifies for WFTC—for a lone parent, that is only 16 hours a week—will be eligible for WFTC. That may be of interest in particular to postgraduates who are writing up, to use the noble Earl's example, where there is some autonomy or flexibility of hours. Anti-social hours in particular may be involved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was hoping that the Minister would say that. I thank her very warmly for doing so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for lone parents the figure is 16 hours; a single person over 25 would involve the 30-hour rule. None the less, there are opportunities in that regard that have not been available previously, which may help some students in future.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right; I will have to take some of these points away. They are not part of the regulations; they are at the interface of our relationship with the DfES. Many of those issues are currently under discussion. If we have any movement on them, I shall be the happiest person to write to the noble Earl. With that, I ask the House to accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved. I shall also speak to the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002.
The first of those two child support provisions involves the revival of what has become known as the deferred debt scheme.
This set of regulations will modify subsection (5) of Section 27 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and Regulation 3 of the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment
Scheme) Regulations 2000 to revive the deferred debt scheme. The reason is that the scheme was good and benign but was time-limited under the existing legislation until 31st March this year.The regulations before us today provide for agreements under the scheme to be made until 31st March 2005. Those agreements will expire by 31st March 2006 and final compensation payments will be made in 2006. There is no significance attached to those dates. We have simply given ourselves plenty of head space.
I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the scheme is to be revived. It helps non-resident parents who are faced with substantial arrears, partly through no fault of their own, and provides encouragement for them to keep up regular payments of maintenance.
Essentially, where the CSA has been responsible for a delay of at least three months, the deferred debt scheme allows the agency to come to an agreement with the non-resident parent. If the non-resident parent agrees to pay at least six months' worth of his arrears, as well as his existing continuing liability, the agency can suspend any collection and enforcement action on the balance of the arrears.
It is possible that a person will have arrears of, say, £20,000. He may be self-employed and may not enter the system. The regulations will enable us to negotiate with him and, if he pays his current liability reliably for the next 12 months, he need pay only six months' worth of that debt, which may be, say, £5,000 or £3,000. The remainder will be suspended. If that money is paid, the agency may then make a compensatory payment to the parent with care if the money is owed to her or him, as the case may be. Sometimes the money is owed to the Secretary of State and sometimes to the parent with care. As a result, if the non-resident parent keeps to his agreement, he will cease to be liable for the remaining arrears. However, if he defaults, the remaining arrears will remain payable.
The intention behind the regulations is to ensure that where the agency has been in part responsible for the delay, non-resident parents do not find themselves with a hill to climb that they cannot manage. In this way, we hope that we may get them into the habit of paying regular maintenance. It is good for the child; it is good for the parent with care, who will receive the remainder of the arrears; and I hope that, as a result, we shall have brought someone out of the shadows. The regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I turn to the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002. This order has been made by the Lord Chancellor under the power in subsections (1) and (7) of Section 45 of the Child Support Act 1991. It has been made by the Lord Chancellor because it relates to the family courts. However, it mainly covers child support policy, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is my responsibility. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor has agreed that it is sensible to debate this order alongside the amending child support regulations.
Appeals against child support decisions are made under Section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991. Such appeals are normally determined by an appeal tribunal established under the Social Security Act 1998. But appeals on the ground of disputed parentage are routed to a court instead of an appeal tribunal by the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993.
Of course, declarations of parentage have a wider legal application beyond child support. They are binding, for example, in immigration and inheritance disputes in the same way as they are binding on child support issues. Therefore, we believe that it is sensible to import the existing powers to go to the courts into the new child support regulations. As a result, this will be binding on the agency.
A non-resident parent can declare and reply directly to the court at any time. Such a declaration is then binding on the CSA. If the person in question is found not to be the parent of the child, any child support maintenance that he may already have paid will be refunded in full by the agency. As I said, the question is simply where the appeal goes. We are suggesting that it is appropriate that it continues to go via the court simply because the declaration of parentage has implications which go wider than child support.
I could elaborate but I do not believe that I need to do so unless your Lordships wish to push me on any aspect of the order. It is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page