Welfare Reform Bill

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the statement. I shall perhaps leave aside the extent to which it picks up the policy that the noble Lord’s party has proposed. I do not think that it is the occasion to do that. If we have an agreement on the direction, that is a good outcome. I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which seeks to modify the duty of parents to maintain their child, as defined in Section 1 of the Child Support Act 1991, so that parents of a qualifying child should make provision for the well-being of their children, alongside the need to provide financial support. Some noble Lords present today will recall that the issue of parental responsibility was discussed at length during the passage of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. We debated a number of amendments, which would have required the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to promote the full responsibilities of parenthood, including matters relating to health development and welfare. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was instrumental in ensuring that these important issues were debated, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment before us today, I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that the Government have not changed their mind on that and therefore I am unable to accept the amendment. Before I set out why, for the benefit of the Committee I should like to restate the role of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and the statutory objectives by which it operates. The noble Lord referred to these. Section 2 of the 2008 Act makes it clear that the commission must maximise the number of effective maintenance arrangements in place between separated parents. Furthermore, as set out in Sections 4 and 5, the commission must take whatever steps it deems appropriate to promote financial responsibility for children among parents, and to provide them with information and guidance about how maintenance arrangements can be established. This is the function of the commission’s Child Maintenance Options service. In summary, the commission’s functions are clearly and deliberately built around the need to secure payments of child maintenance. Of course, I recognise and fully support the fundamental premise that parental responsibility does not stop with financial commitments alone. However, I do not believe that the Child Support Act is the right legislation to contain a broader statement on parental responsibility or that the commission would be the right body to pursue this broader agenda. While I recognise that the amendment being proposed would not necessarily require the commission to enforce this wider duty, the fact that it would be contained within the Child Support Act may suggest that this is the case. While the proper place for such legislation would be the Children Act 1989, which already contains a definition of parental responsibility—I know the noble Lord is aware of this from the debates we had both in relation to the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill and the Children and Young Person’s Act 2008—the Government does not favour the legislative approach in any event. However, that does not mean that the link between child maintenance payments and other aspects of parental responsibility is ignored. Part of the role of the Child Maintenance Options service is to guide parents towards specialist organisations that can help with other aspects of parental responsibility. Furthermore, Section 7 of the 2008 Act gives the commission power to enter into arrangements with other agencies that may have similar issues. In addition, the commission is currently conducting research with parents to establish what factors encourage appropriate parental behaviour. The findings will be used to deliver marketing and communication campaigns that promote parents’ awareness of the importance of taking responsibility for maintaining their children. This approach is detailed in the commission’s corporate plan, which is due to run until the end of the 2011-2012 financial year, a copy of which I will make available to the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked about Section 4 of the 2008 Act and how the commission is promoting parental responsibility. In addition to the planned research and resultant marketing and communications campaigns, which I have already mentioned, the commission will work alongside other government departments, agencies, trusted intermediary and specialist advisory organisations that interact with families, children and separated parents. This will be done with the aim of promoting the benefits of maintenance arrangements and to build awareness and demand for the help available through the Child Maintenance Options service. Perhaps I may say that that service was introduced when we removed compulsion to use the state maintenance service on parents with care who claimed benefits. In a sense, it is early days yet, but I am more than happy to write to noble Lords to give them an update on how that is progressing. I had some data when we were debating regulations last night, but they are in another file. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will accept that the amendment is not in the right place here, but I am sure that we will have another go at the matter.