Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for introducing this group of amendments and acknowledge his long-standing interest and expertise in issues of child maintenance. Like him, I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA and CMEC who, over many years, have stuck with the various iterations of child maintenance that they have had to deal with and sometimes struggle with. My noble friend Lady Hollis gave us a brief history of child maintenance. It is right that one of the problems and the reason why the first of these amendments in particular—I support them all—is so important is that along the way the CSA has sought to be different things and to achieve different objectives. In 1991, it was substantially focused on the clawback of benefit, so no benefit accrued to children. The 2004 amendments recast that and focused the CSA on child poverty in particular, but, as my noble friend said, it was stymied to a certain extent by not being able to make progress on the disregards. I defend the 2008 changes—noble Lords would not expect me to do otherwise—for a number of reasons. It potentially gets round the problem of those who do not want to pay by the assessment being on the gross income of the non-resident parent, which is obtainable from HMRC. That has not yet been implemented, but it was a key issue in stopping non-resident parents messing up the system, which is what happened to the two previous systems. Voluntary it might have been, but there was an absolute right for either parent to make use of the statutory system with charges, which we are going to come to, that did not deter people on low incomes. I agree with the analysis made by my noble friend Lady Lister. Generally, parents with care are overwhelmingly women and non-residents parents are overwhelmingly men. Sadly, too many non-resident parents do not see it as their obligation to support their children. In one particularly extreme case, a file crossed my desk in which a non-resident parent was arguing about an assessment. He was self-employed and said that if he had to pay at the level he was asked to pay in support of his children he would have to keep his Rolls-Royce for a second year rather than change it. I kid you not. That actually happened. As we have heard, Amendment 113B would introduce into the Child Support Act 1991 a clear statutory objective identical to the objectives we set out for the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. In short, it would maximise the number of children for whom effective maintenance arrangements are in place. We know that the demise of CMEC is planned under the Public Bodies Bill and that its function will be taken on by an executive agency of the DWP. Once CMEC is abolished, its objectives and functions will no longer be set out in primary legislation. Unless the Minister can direct me otherwise, the 1991 Act, so far as I am aware, does not have that as an objective. The Government have launched a consultation on their proposals to abolish CMEC and to transfer its functions to the DWP, but it would seem from the draft order that there is no intent to transfer the objective of the commission. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and, as my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, tell us why. As has also been mentioned, the 2008 Act contained two subsidiary objectives: one to encourage and support the making and keeping of voluntary arrangements, the other to support the making of applications under the statutory scheme and ensuring compliance therewith. Our debate at the time of the 2008 legislation was whether one of these subsidiary objectives took precedence over the other. We took the view—and continue to take the view—that where voluntary arrangements are appropriate, they should be encouraged and supported as they are typically more sustainable. However, there was a clear recognition that there should be an unfettered access to the statutory scheme and the obligation to ensure compliance therewith for those who wanted it. These are two components of the drive to maximise maintenance arrangements with, incidentally, an obligation on CMEC to promote child maintenance. These matters are important in the current context because, whatever the debate at the time about the balance of the two measures, the thrust of this Government’s proposals will clearly pushig people away from the statutory system. The proposals for charging, the gateway, the NRP’s veto and the migration proposals from the old and current to the new system will obviously be debated in subsequent amendments. However, there is concern that, overall, these proposals will mean that the opportunity for maximising maintenance arrangements will be lost, particularly to the most vulnerable. In these circumstances, to have the explicit objective of maximising the number of children benefitting from maintenance arrangements should be supported, particularly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. We know that child maintenance can make a huge difference to the quality of a child’s life. We have heard also about the progress that has been made in recent years but there is still much to do. What will the abolition of CMEC’s main objective mean? A number of questions arise from the abolition of a clear and transparent obligation on the part of CMEC as an agent of the Secretary of State to apply the powers and functions available to it, with the clear overall objective of maximising the number of effective child maintenance arrangements. Although the Government have said that they will continue to have such a commitment, in practice that commitment may come under threat at a time of considerable pressure to reduce the statutory case load in order to reduce DWP expenditure. As we have heard, the Minister told the Public Bill Committee that child maintenance was only one issue facing separating families. There is a risk that, by choosing to focus on the wider range of issues that affect families on separation, the Government could lose sight of the primary objective of the commission: getting money to children. The Government are confident that they will actually increase the proportion of children receiving child maintenance by creating a new infrastructure of family support services to enable significantly more parents to make and maintain collaborative, family-based arrangements. However, as yet this is very much work in progress with few detailed plans or investment details published. We also support Amendment 113C, which calls for a regular report from the commission that looks at a range of information that should in effect underpin the approach of pushing people away from the statutory service and towards private or voluntary arrangements. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we are thoroughly supportive of the proposal to build an integrated model of relationship and family support services that will help families to make their own lasting agreements, but given that engaging with such services is the gateway to the statutory system, and given the charging proposals, which will deter parents from accessing the statutory system, it is vital that we understand the level of need and the scope and capacity of the family support services that will be available. Can the Minister please tell us more about how this service is to be structured? Where will the ministerial responsibility lie? What budgeting provision is available? What is to be the future of the options service? As for Amendment 113D, the Bill will require an applicant to the statutory system to take reasonable steps to establish whether it is possible or appropriate to make a private or voluntary agreement. However, this will require the engagement of the other party. We know how difficult it can be and, sadly, the lengths to which some will go to avoid their responsibility to children, which puts the onus on the PWC. That is not right. We support the right of automatic access to the statutory service if the other party does not engage. However, I wonder whether the 14-day period is a little too short. We also support Amendment 113F. I think the original plan was that by 2013 there would be one statutory scheme based on the gross income of the NRP, with most of the information obtained directly from HMRC, as I said a moment ago. Presumably that could be real-time information now or very shortly. It is now proposed to close all CSA cases over a two-year period. They will be given three months and will have to go through the gateway. Some 1.2 million families currently in the system, plus new ones coming into it, will be affected by this. What is the capacity of gateway services to cope with these volumes? How is it to be structured? There is a suggestion that only those who cannot reach a family-based arrangement need apply to the statutory scheme, and there will be a fee structure to encourage this. Is that the same fee structure that it is proposed will be applied generally, or is this a special separate and specifically targeted fee arrangement? If so, what is it? This seems to us to be another example of seeking to force cases out of the statutory system. The gateway will be in its infancy. Who will make the judgment and what will be the process? Will there be an appeals process or will people be forced out with no right of redress? Will someone who is denied access be able to start the process again and, if so, within what period of time? If family arrangements do not work, how long will it be before a fresh application can be made to the statutory scheme? As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, cases may have been around for a very long time and this approach could revive old conflicts. Will both parents have to engage with the gateway? How long will that process take? We have no problem with advice, but at the end of the day people must have a choice as to whether or not they enter the statutory scheme.