Let me start by thanking the Minister for his thanks to Opposition Members for our co-operation and scrutiny during the Bill's passage. He is absolutely right—Members in all parts of the House are absolutely united in trying to get our system of child support right. We all recognise that that has not been the case for many years, and the fault for that really lies with Members of this House present and past, and absolutely not with the staff—I agree with the Minister on that—who have done their best in difficult circumstances. Frankly, they have not had the tools to do the job, as he said. The Bill contains a pretty powerful toolkit that we on the Conservative Benches agree with in very large part.
On amendment No. 1, we welcome the extra transparency provided by the inclusion in the commission's annual report on the provision of services to CMEC by Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments or public bodies specified by the Secretary of State. Co-operation, in particular with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, will be fundamental to the commission's future success. I give the Minister advance notice that when we discuss the next group of amendments, I shall raise some specific issues about the current level of co-operation—or non co-operation, as sadly is the case—with HMRC, given existing legislation. I shall not expect him to have immediate answers, but I should be grateful if he would get back to me.
Clearly, HMRC and the Treasury will be assisting CMEC, but it is not clear to me precisely what CMEC will be doing for other Departments and public bodies. Lords amendment No. 1 cuts both ways; it is about services supplied both to and by CMEC. I can clearly see that there is a case for CMEC to help HMRC should it find out details about information that is perhaps not being declared to the Revenue; that would be an entirely sensible use of CMEC staff time. However, will the Minister elaborate as to whether there are any other areas in which CMEC staff will be expected to help other Departments and public bodies? After all, it is not as if CMEC's staff will not already have enough to do and will not already have their work cut out significantly.
The Minister began by discussing Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, and 106 to 117. As he said, they will change the status of CMEC to that of a Crown body, and will ensure that the commission's staff will remain as civil servants and will not have to change their employer. Lords amendment No. 2 also introduces a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to review the status of the commission after three years, with the possibility of further reviews. I agree with the Minister that if we do not get staff morale right, we will not make a success of the commission. He rightly says that ensuring that the staff are happy and on board is essential. Given that Crown status is so important to the staff, will not reviewing it after three years, with the promise of further reviews, be unsettling to them? The Minister's objective might have been to reassure the staff—the 10,000 individuals of whom he spoke—but having constant ongoing reviews hanging over them is a funny way of doing that.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Selous
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 3 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c653-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:56:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476673
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476673
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476673