| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
It is for similar reasons that I cannot agree with Amendment No. 107, which would make all regulations made under Schedule 5 subject to the affirmative procedure. Once the transfer process is under way, the commission will be able to see how it is taking shape and may need to make changes at fairly short notice. As any changes will require regulations, making them subject to debates in both Houses could introduce unacceptable delays, which could have detrimental effects for the parents involved. Notwithstanding that, we ought to think seriously about changing the initial set of regulations, but I will revert to that matter on Report.
Finally, Amendment No. 220 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the strategy for informing parents of the details of the timetable and arrangements for transfer to the new arrangements. It is our intention to be completely transparent about how the transfer process will work. We will make that information available to honourable Members so that they can raise any concerns at that time and before the transfer to new arrangements begins. Honourable Members and noble Lords, I should say—I saw the Chairman bristling at that. You can see where this speaking note originated.
It is essential not only that Parliament can scrutinise the plan but also that parents understand the choices that will be available to them during the transfer period. We are committed to minimising the disruption to parents in that period by providing a seamless service for the move to the new arrangements. We are also concerned that this amendment, were it to be accepted, could build delays into beginning the process of moving cases to the new maintenance arrangements. That could prevent children from benefiting from the movement to new maintenance arrangements at the earliest opportunity.
I shall try to pick up some of the other points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the computer system for the old scheme cases. He said that he thought that the contract ran out in 2010. He is pretty well informed, as usual, but there is a right to extend that as required, which it almost certainly will be. Cases will remain on that system until, possibly, 2013.
The noble Lord also asked about the releases under PR1 and how that will affect things. It is vital, and the CSA recognises this, that any new releases should be fully tested. To date they have been extensively tested and we believe that PR1 will be delivered in time to ensure that the indicative timescales in Section 6 that I referred to last time can be adhered to. I stress that it is not just CSA systems that need to be adjusted; Jobcentre Plus is being worked on as well because of the changes around benefits and the removal of Section 6 compulsion. Those systems have to cope as well.
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC631
I shall take a little step back. It is implicit in the discussion that we have already had that the transitional process proceeds as follows. The first issue is the removal of Section 6. By the end of 2008, on the basis of current plans and timing, there will be a choice for all parents to stay in the system or enter the system. In 2010 the transition of cases from the first and second schemes to the new scheme, for those who wish to stay in the statutory scheme, will then begin. It means that, for a period, three different schemes will run, but we will end up in 2013 with one scheme, in which everybody will be on the same basis of assessment. The transition is not brief, but it is right to build in time to make sure that it can be done effectively and that we avoid some of the difficulties that have been encountered in the past. It is currently proposed that people will have formally to opt in to the statutory system. That is being looked at by the commission but, if that is where we end up, it is important that parents who wish to stay in the system are supported in doing so.
3 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: While the Minister has been speaking, I have been looking at paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 5, which states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulation make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, giving effect”—
these are the important words—
Could that not be read as a presumption in favour of the voluntary scheme?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It could.
Lord Skelmersdale: Is that desirable? Is it what the Minister wants? I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, wants, but if my suspicion is correct, we will have an even longer discussion on Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: That takes us back to a debate that we had a couple of days ago. Let us be clear that we want parents to have the choice. We want those who are currently in the system to have the choice whether to stay in it just as anybody else will have the choice. We had a philosophical debate about whether we were encouraging voluntary arrangements as a broad principle. I think that it is clear that that is where we are, but it is not inconsistent with making sure that those people who want and choose to go into the statutory system are fully supported in doing so. The mechanics by which they end up in the system are a secondary issue; the principle is that, on the basis of information and support, that is what people choose to do. We must do everything that we can to make sure that that is where they end up.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely right. The Minister is obviously right in saying that we will move to one statutory scheme, but we are creating one statutory scheme plus a voluntary scheme. Those in the
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC632
Perhaps I may have one last go before I shut up on this and we perhaps revisit the issue in some other way. Let us assume that somebody is in the statutory scheme and remains in it. They have two children and receive 20 per cent of income net. Under a new case in the voluntary scheme, as the Minister said, they would be entitled to approximately 8 per cent or one-third of the other’s total liability of 25 per cent. Under that new, voluntary case, they would have to know not only the other’s income but also all the details of the existing case on the statutory system to be aware that they were entitled not to 15 per cent net, which they might recently have thought if they were the only case, but to 8 per cent net because an existing case was on the statutory system, which they, being voluntary, had no way of knowing about or accessing. The second family, in the voluntary scheme, may well get short-changed because of a lack of knowledge and bargaining power in the equation.
Let us take a second case as an example. It is a brand-new case coming into the voluntary system. One child is involved and the non-resident parent agrees the equivalent of 15 per cent. That is fine and everybody is very happy. There then comes a second child in the voluntary system. The first person asks, “What is going to happen?”. Are the two women expected to get together over a cup of tea and divvy up the money? How will each of them know what they can reasonably ask from the non-resident parent without them knowing about the other and what the other is getting?
There are real problems with the alignment of a voluntary system with a statutory one and with the alignment of one voluntary system with another. I absolutely agree that in many cases there is no problem with there being a single, one-off voluntary system where there is an agreement to pay. However, the moment you move beyond that—we saw this with all the problems with the old CSA—we are simply substituting different sorts of complexity, without the parent with care necessarily being able to have formal knowledge based on what the statutory bodies have collected from her.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: It is inevitable that the more links there are, the more complexity there is. However, to return to the first of my noble friend’s examples of what a parent with care in the voluntary scheme will be entitled to, the starting point is that they would have a voluntary arrangement for something to which the two parties agree. If that negotiation could be successfully concluded and sustained, it would involve some discussion about the non-resident parent’s other commitments. At the end of the day, if the new parent with care is not satisfied with where a voluntary agreement is heading, they would test the statutory scheme and see what came from it.
We acknowledge that there are challenges for parents with care to obtain information, particularly when relationships have been fairly transitory. That is why
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC633
Let me see whether I can address the other points. Perhaps I concluded on what the broad transition was and how we reach 2013. My noble friend also talked about the disparity between the views of NRPs and PWCs. That is a real point. It is not fair to say that the NRPs will inevitably prefer a voluntary arrangement to the statutory system because they will get away with less. Many of them are bugged by having to be in the system at the moment, particularly when it has not really produced more cash for their kids. That drives some, but I accept not all, of the behaviour.
I hope that I have dealt with the queries about the IT systems. I stress that it is for CMEC to decide ultimately which system it ends up with. Inevitably it will start off with the system that is there at the moment and will live with that and with the enhancements that will be made through PR1 through much if not all the transition. As I said, however, that is something for CMEC to decide in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked how many schemes had been transferred.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I did not ask that; I asked how many had not been transferred. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who asked how many had been transferred, which really does not matter.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Who could say that the noble Lord’s 20-minute introduction does not matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: I did not say that; I said that that particular question, which was wrapped up in a whole series of other comments and questions, does not matter to the argument that I have been trying to pursue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: If the noble Lord’s question was how many cases have not been transferred from the first scheme to the—we call it the “new scheme”, but we will have to get away from that term now that there is a third scheme—current scheme, the answer is very few. I do not have the absolute number, because we said that we would transfer cases only when the new IT systems could cope with that. We know that they have not been able to. Inevitably, cases are drawn across into the current scheme when they are linked under the sort of arrangements that we have been talking about.
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC634
I have an absolute figure. There are currently 443,680 cases maintained on CSCS—the original scheme. Subject to what happens with linkages in the interim, those cases will remain on that scheme until they come across into the new scheme.
Lord Skelmersdale: They will jump the intervening scheme, in other words.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Indeed they will.
I hope that that has dealt with each of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about the numbers and how we could be confident on the behavioural responses to the new arrangements. Indeed, we cannot be absolutely confident about that. The surveys that we have undertaken, to which the noble Lord referred, have given us some information and some basis on which to plan. These things are kept under review, but we must ensure that there is capacity and flexibility in the system to deal with what comes from these arrangements. That is why the transition is relatively extended. I will leave it there, if I may. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If not, I am going home.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: We might as well all go home. The debate has demonstrated that it is obviously essential that this new commission, CMEC, should make some of its own decisions for itself. However, I make the final point that, as demonstrated by the debate, leaving the commission in charge of the transition by itself is not safe. It is perfectly reasonable to get it to oversee and deploy the plan in the legislation, but we have had much bad experience of this transitional process. This is my final plea. I am encouraged by the Minister saying that he would think about the affirmative resolution procedure being used at parliamentary level, at least in the initial stages of this transfer. If we do not get this right, the organisation has no chance of success. It is carrying a package of legacy issues, which we all understand. However, the debate has been useful, even if it just demonstrates the complexity of the transfer process that we are facing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 103:
(1) A parent with care may make representations (oral, written or otherwise) in enforcement proceedings commenced under this Act and attend enforcement proceedings hearings brought under this Act.
(2) A parent with care may apply to a magistrates’ court or an appeal tribunal for collection or enforcement pursuant to paragraphs 20 to 28 of this Act.”
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 179, 180, 181 and 213 in my name and the question that Clauses 24 and
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC635
My amendments in this rather large group are all intended to protect the parent from CMEC impinging on their civil liberties. Before discussing Amendment No. 103, I should point out that there is, I am afraid, a misprint on the Marshalled List: proposed subsection (2) should refer not to paragraphs 20 to 28, but to Sections 20 to 28. I see the Minister nodding, so he obviously realised that when he was preparing his—dare I say?—defence.
Amendment No. 103 and our opposition to the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill have been tabled to garner a little more clarity about enforcement proceedings and the role of the parent with care within those enforcement proceedings. Amendment No. 103 would allow the parent with care to do four things: to make representations in respect of the appropriate enforcement action; to be involved in the enforcement action taken by the commission; to be permitted to attend enforcement proceedings; and to take their own enforcement action in certain circumstances. That is currently prevented under the two existing child support systems.
It is often the parent with care who has the necessary information in respect of the non-resident parent’s financial circumstances. Especially in the early months following separation, the parent with care will know of any assets held by the non-resident parent, which may mean that the appropriate enforcement action to be taken should include an application for a third-party debt order or a charging order or whatever—the various sanctions that are available to the commission.
That information is rarely released by a non-resident parent to the Child Support Agency. Notwithstanding the effects of the interrelationship between CMEC and HMRC, that position is likely to continue in the future. It is often a lack of knowledge of the non-resident parent’s circumstances that leads to a delay of appropriate, or indeed any, enforcement action being taken. Does the Minister not think that, as the remit of the commission is to secure payment with minimum delay, the parent with care should be involved in that process and should be in a position to make representations that will achieve that aim? Would it not help the commission to have the advice of the parent with care? How does the Minister justify the rather unusual situation that the person who generally has financial interest in payment being secured is the only person prevented from making representations about how such payments should be secured? I find it odd that the existing formulation prevents the parent with care from taking any enforcement action in his or her own right, even if there is a complete failure by the child support organisation, CMEC, to take enforcement action, which, therefore, results in a financial loss to the parent with care. I cannot believe that that is really a situation that the Minister wants. I beg to move.
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC636
3.15 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise the Committee to delete the word “paragraphs” and insert “sections” in the second line of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 103, as was said.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I have three or four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend dealing with Clauses 26 to 28 stand part and Amendment No. 187.
I can dispose of Amendment No. 187 expeditiously. The Committee may know this, but it may be worth asking a couple of questions about the difficulty of enforcement of some of these maintenance payments in arrears in the United Kingdom. In a previous incarnation as a country solicitor in Scotland, I always found it immensely difficult to get hold of people to enforce a matrimonial aliment and other orders if the absent father left the jurisdiction of the court. Under the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 it was certainly possible to enforce a maintenance order made by the UK courts on behalf of a UK resident, and it had to be registered because of the procedure involved. That can eventually be deployed in courts in other countries. It is a complicated process. It is known as the REMO procedure and a CSA website gives helpful details of it. It is cumbersome and difficult.
There are two hopeful signs on the legal horizon. The first is that the Hague convention looked at this in November 2007 and a new global convention on international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance was finalised. That new Hague convention was intended to provide a much reduced bureaucracy—a swift, cost-effective more accessible and fair procedure—to allow international recovery. The convention was signed by the United States immediately. I think that it is expected that the European Union, through the Commission, will commit all EU countries to the convention shortly.
I understand that the European Union has looked at this matter separately. I know a little bit about it because I sit on your Lordships’ Sub-Committee G, which looks at social policy. In 2004, the Commission published a Green Paper on this matter. In 2005, it published an impact assessment to look at different options. The aim is to replace the diverse provisions that underpin reciprocal arrangements between EU countries with a specific regulation that deals with international maintenance cases. Will the Minister confirm that Britain intends to sign up to the new Hague convention and, if so, when will CMEC and its client group be able to take advantage of its provisions? Will he confirm that the European Union is likely to agree with a specific Council regulation? More generally, what additional steps can the Government take to allow child maintenance orders under the CMEC provisions to be directly enforced abroad? In this global day and age, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this will become an even bigger problem than it has been in the past, as foreign travel and people’s movements around the globe become more extensive and prolific.
7 Feb 2008 : Column GC637
Perhaps I may say a few words about Clauses 26, 27 and 28, which relate to curfew orders, prison provision and driving licences. These penalties are now more or less discredited. Curfew orders are a nugatory waste of space, time and effort. They will provoke non-resident parents who set their face against the Act to look for curfew orders, which will not in any way, shape or form be a deterrent. I can understand that they give comfort to the red-top, tabloid press, which will say that the Government are being tough on deadbeat dads and other such nonsense, but they are a distraction and discredit the proper work of the commission, which is to get money out of non-resident parents if they refuse to pay or delay in doing so. Curfew orders create much administrative distraction and displacement of activity. In the court of public opinion—let us disregard human rights challenges under the European convention—they are more trouble than they are worth.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |