Clause
11
Supplementary
provisions
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill
Andrew
Selous:
This being a clause stand part debate, we can
range reasonably widely round it, although I am conscious of your
guidance in our last
debate.
On the face
of it, clause 11 looks like another short, innocuous clause that
introduces supplementary provisions and does not warrant too much
attention, as it contains no great issues. Subsection (1) mentions the
definition of “child”. Further on, clause 37 deals with
the meaning of “child”. Just for wider understanding,
beyond this Committee—perhaps even for Committee
members—I would be grateful if the Minister assured the
Committee that the meaning of “child” in clause 11 is the
same as that in clause 37, which in general terms refers to children
under 16 or children under 20 who are in full-time education or other
circumstances that meet with the conditions prescribed in clause
37(1)(b).
Subsection
(2) contains the much wider issue of share of care, which I am sensing,
increasingly strongly, is a large issue that is not sufficiently
addressed in the Bill. It
says:
“The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about when a child
is, or is not, to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as living
apart from a parent.”
To
put it on the record, I understand that under the current definition of
what we are talking about, children living apart from one of their
parents spend more than 260 nights away from their other
parent’s home. If I have understood that correctly, a contention
exists between parents on occasions in respect of shared care
arrangements when the non-resident parent has their child for
approaching 104 or more nights. Understandably, the parent with care
might say, “No, you’re not having our children for more
than 104 nights, because I don’t want to lose any money.”
I have a lot of sympathy with that. I understand the concern of the
parent with care about a possible reduction in her maintenance as a
result of the child spending 104 nights or more with their father. That
is a source of great concern and contention, and it comes back to the
general issue, which we discussed in respect of clause 2, about the
welfare of the
child.
Mr.
Boswell:
I have two quick comments on which I would value
my hon. Friend’s opinion. First, 104 days neatly coincides with
weekends, which must be a typical pattern of shared care. Secondly, the
overheads continue for somebody who loses only a few nights of care.
That must be a factor in their view of whether the arrangement is
equitable.
Andrew
Selous:
As always, the Committee is indebted to my hon.
Friend for his wise remarks. On his first point, he is right: 104 days
is 52 weekends of two nights. The question of school holidays also
comes into that. Parents might have their child every weekend during
term time, but they might want them for a bit longer over the summer
holiday or the Christmas holiday. Are the maintenance calculations then
brought into question because of
that?
5.15
pm
In respect of
my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a
certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole
year—even though they are not there every night—are fixed
and utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the appropriate
number of bedrooms are
expensive.
In respect
of my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a
certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole
year—even though the child is not there each night—are
fixed. Utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the
appropriate number of bedrooms are expensive. Looking at matters the
other way round brings me neatly to the need to recognise the
contribution that non-resident parents often make in respect of meals,
food and clothes, even though their child is classed as living away
from them as parents. The huge concern felt about that by many
parents—mainly, but not exclusively, fathers—is
justified.
The
Bill’s aspiration in clause 2(2)(a) is to cover as many children
as possible of divorced or separated parents. Incidentally, the phrase
“children of divorced or separated parents” is greatly
preferred by many non-resident parents, who deeply resent the term that
we have slipped into using, because it is quick and easy. We have to be
careful to think of the effect that anachronisms and terms have on
people who care deeply for their children and who are greatly involved
in their lives. Given that we are discussing a new start or new
organisation, perhaps CMEC will think about using new phraseology. It
is not really a matter for the Minister to give a detailed response to
now, but perhaps it will be considered in the
future.
Under clause
2(2)(a), the overriding objective that relates to clause 11 is for CMEC
to encourage and support the making and keeping by parents of
appropriate voluntary arrangements for their children. The Minister
hopes that the definition in clause 11(2) will not have to apply to the
greatest number of children. In his ideal world, it would not apply to
any children, because the arrangements would be voluntary and therefore
it would not be the business of the state, CMEC or any organ of
government to look at the regulation and see how many nights here and
how many nights there. Parents will have the flexibility to make their
own arrangements to have a certain amount of money flowing forward, and
the children can come and go without financial consequences. I greatly
welcome that aspect of the Bill. It is excellent that more parents will
not have to go through nasty weekly conundrums in respect of the
split.
I do not
expect the Minister to have fully worked out answers now, but the issue
is serious. He has said that he will go away and consider a specific
amendment from the previous group that we considered. In all
seriousness, I say to him that the matter is of justified and genuine
concern. It can be dealt with slightly more equitably than it is at
present without requiring the him to take sides between parents with
care and non-resident parents. I should be grateful if he could give us
clues about his thinking or that of the Department and say whether he
is prepared to have the period of summer reflection that he has assured
us he will embark
on.
Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): May I add my words of welcome to
you, Mr. Taylor? I wish to follow on from what was said by
the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. He referred to the
definition of a child under the Child Support Act 1991, to which clause
11 refers. He said that a child was someone under the age of 16 or
under the age of 20 in full-time education. I draw the
Minister’s attention to the fact that that is not quite correct
under Scots law. Under section 1 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985,
both parents can be obliged to pay aliment to a child in full-time
education to the age of 25, and I will move an amendment to clause 37
in that respect. Will the Minister confirm whether clause 11 refers to
the Child Support Act 1991? Presumably it will be referred to as
amended, if I am successful in my later efforts on clause
37.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
As the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire has reminded us, shared care is a vexed area. As he has
recognised, Ministers do not want to get drawn into such an area. They
do not want to become involved in the discussion or debates that
separating parents might have in respect of arrangements over shared
care.
If the hon.
Gentleman has studied the White Paper and all the responses from
stakeholders and consultees—I am sure that he has—he will
know that there was no consensus over the sort of change that should be
made. In such circumstances, we were right to conclude that we should
leave the existing arrangements for shared care provision within the
maintenance
calculations.
Andrew
Selous:
The Minister has said that it is not an
area that he wishes to get involved in. However, there is currently
huge ministerial involvement, because a set of regulations exist that
massively affect that area.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The hon. Gentleman was tempting me to get
even further involved than I am. Drawing on the years of experience
that we have on this matter, we concluded that the current formula has
been reasonably well road-tested and is reasonably effective. There was
no consensus in our consultation to do anything different or anything
other than the arrangements that already exist. That is why it is
sensible to carry over those arrangements into
CMEC.
Clause 11(1)
sets out that the definition of child
“has the same meaning as in the
Child Support Act
1991”
and makes
provision for the Secretary of State to regulate when a child is to be
regarded as living apart from the parent. The definition of a child in
the Child Support Act 1991 is to be amended by clause 37. Following the
amendment, a child will be defined as a
person who is under the age of 16, or under the age of 20 under certain
conditions. Clause 11 ensures that that meaning is used by the
commission not only in the statutory maintenance service, but in
information and support services and throughout the child maintenance
system. In Scotland, the definition of a child is different, and
children have different
rights. Clause
11(2), which was the subject of the debate, refers to children who live
apart from one or both parents. To ensure that there is no confusion
over the scope of the objective and the circumstances that it is
intended to cover, clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to
provide in regulation when a child is to be
regarded
“as living
apart from a
parent.”
That power is
intended to be used in circumstances in which it might be argued that a
child lived with both parents, in whatever proportion, and therefore
did not fall under the commission’s main objective because that
child would not be living apart from one or both parents. The statutory
maintenance service has robust and clear procedures that allow the
maintenance service to apply clear and consistent rules when assessing
a claim, even if there are complex family arrangements such as those
that he has referred
to.
When the
commission exercises other functions, such as the promotion of parental
responsibility and the provision of information and guidance, the
measure will ensure that that is not restricted in terms of who is
considered to be a child living apart from one or both
parents.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 11
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
12
Transfer
of child support
functions
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander:
I have a few brief questions to put to the
Minister. Because clause 12 relates to the transfer of functions from
the Child Support Act 1991, and therefore, in many cases, effectively
from the CSA to CMEC, this is a good opportunity to ask some questions
about the nature of, and planning for, the transition between the two
organisations, although there may be further opportunities to raise
such issues.
The
clause cuts to the heart of questions about the administration of the
transition. It will transfer a substantial number of functions under
the 1991 Act to CMEC, except those listed in subsection (2)—the
exceptions are dealt with clearly in the explanatory notes. I note in
passing that the Work and Pensions Committee, in a report in March this
year,
stated:
“The
CSA has an unfavourable history regarding transition between
systems.”
If transitions
from the old to the new within the CSA have proved to be such a
problem, what consideration has the Minister given to the framing of
the clause to deal with the potential pitfalls in transferring
functions from the CSA to the new body? In his report, Sir David
Henshaw stated:
“I believe there are
strong reasons to justify making a clean break from the current Agency
and creating a new body with a
mandate to deliver a ‘fresh start’ for child support. This
body should be separate from the task of dealing with legacy issues
from the current system, including the management of existing
debt.” I am
probing the Minister to go a little further on the matter. Perhaps he
has not had an opportunity so far in the Committee to explain why the
Government have chosen not to follow up that recommendation to keep the
functions separate and to use the CSA to wind up historic debt and so
on and to deal with other issues under the old system. That would allow
CMEC to make a fresh start with future
applications.
There
is a question of the extent to which the creation of CMEC is delivering
the clean break that Henshaw recommended and which the Committee wants
to see. Two members of the Select Committee are here: the hon. Member
for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire.
Although one must remain silent, we hope to hear from the other in our
debates. As they will remember, in its evidence to the Committee, One
Parent Families stated
that
“it would appear
that the CSA (its staff and computer system) will simply be re-branded
as C-MEC from 2008
onwards.”
Natascha
Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)
indicated
dissent.
Danny
Alexander:
The hon. Lady shakes her head: I am sorry that
we shall not be hearing from her any more.
The question is that if the
previous functions under the 1991 Act are to be transferred nem. con.,
with the exceptions of the six listed items in subsection (2), to what
extent is the measure really a clean break? That is open to question. I
invite the Minister to explain how he sees the issue. The Select
Committee also expressed concern that CMEC will run three different
systems in parallel for a time. Again, that seems not to represent the
clean break proposed by
Henshaw.
In that
context, it is worth referring briefly to the issue of public confusion
and misunderstanding about what is happening. CMEC will take over roles
from the previous system. There has been talk in the press of the
abolition of the CSA and a clean break, which has rightly reflected the
Government’s own line on the matter, but it has given rise to a
great deal of confusion in the general public and among the base of
people who make use of the CSA and who may in future make use of
CMEC.
Simply
lumping everything in with the new agency is perhaps not the best way
to make things clear. I hope, therefore, that as well as the points
that the Minister will undoubtedly wish to make, he will also respond
to the important issues of the public’s understanding of what is
going on and whether the Bill really is the fundamental change that my
party wishes to
see.
5.30
pm
Mr.
Harper:
I have a couple of brief points to make. On the
point that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, when reviewing Sir David
Henshaw’s report I looked at some of the work on transition
between organisations. I would appreciate it if the
Minister outlined the thinking within the Department about how the
transition from
the existing organisation to the new one might be managed. Many hon.
Members, including the Minister and his colleagues, talk about a clean
break. Sir David’s report said that there are a number of
successful business models in the private sector for making a success
of a clean break and on how to deal with a new business, a new model
and the old arrangements. A key lesson from successful operations of
that type was that the two different activities require different
skills, organisational cultures and performance
management.
As the
hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, we have
not heard a great deal about how transferring all of the functions and
all of the people, as proposed by the next clause, will create a new
organisation with a new mindset, a new culture, and—most
importantly for the outside world—a new image. By that I do not
mean just a new brand or identity, but a difference in performance that
people can see as a real change. Persuading people that there has been
a real change and a break with the past when they see effectively the
same processes, the same people and very little difference, is going to
be quite
difficult.
It will be
encouraging for the Committee if the Minister outlines some of the
thinking in the Department because the commission will have to hit the
ground running. If that culture change does not succeed right at the
beginning, I am afraid that it will be too late. If the new
organisation starts working without successfully doing that, it will
not be possible to do it later. Will the Minister run through that for
the benefit of the
Committee?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I shall begin with the points raised by the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean and work back to the others. In a sense,
there are real problems with what he is asking. On the one hand he
wants to ensure a clean break and is raising questions about whether
that can be achieved by transferring functions. The implication, as I
hear it, is that he wants to achieve a clean break by completely
bringing all the functions of the CSA to a full stop somehow, as if it
were possible to switch off one system, pack it up, put it away and
then switch on another one and start again with something new. With
respect to him, that cannot be done because there are at least 650,000
children involved for whom the most critical thing is
that we ensure an uninterrupted and steady flow of maintenance. It is
therefore extremely important to have as smooth as possible a glide
path, if I might use the phrase again, from the existing cases within
the agency into the new commission. Let me put it this way: despite all
the problems that we are familiar with in the context of the agency, I
would hope that those parents for whom the system currently
works—and there are many for whom it does work—will not
notice the difference. It is important that smoothly running flows of
child maintenance should continue. For that reason, it is not possible
simply to switch off one agency and start another. The carry-over from
one to the other is critical.
Mr.
Harper:
For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting
that. That is not what is happening; the commission is going to pick up
the responsibility for those cases that do work. However, given that we
know that the CSA has not been the most successful of organisations,
how can we be sure that we are going to get a successful commission
that works across the piece
both for its new customers and for those who have not been very well
treated, as well as for collecting the historical
debt?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Remember that it will not happen all in one big
bang. As we set out in the White Paper, it will take a number of years
to achieve the transition from the state that things are in now to the
state in which the commission is fully up and running and is
responsible for every aspect of child maintenance. It will be about
2013 before that happens, and we will apply the lessons learned from
the CSA about the importance of taking time to get a complex transition
such as this right. I hope that that reassures the hon.
Gentleman.
The hon.
Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked why we had
not proceeded with David Henshaw’s recommendation to have, in
effect, two bodies: a legacy body and a new commission. We thought
carefully about that but did not accept it because we want to go down
what we believe to be the more efficient route. It is our firm view
that it is crucial to have a single controlling team overseeing all
aspects of the legacy cases as well as the new ones. The process needs
to be as seamless as possible for all the clients who are involved in
it. I am sure that if we were to move to a two-body situation, that
would add confusion for clients. In dealing with matters relating to
their family, they might find themselves working with one organisation
handling legacy cases while also having to have a relationship with
another body dealing with subsequent cases. There are many complex
cases, and that would not be a satisfactory state of affairs. For those
reasons, it was much more sensible to go for a single body overseeing
all the legacy work as well as the new
cases.
Mr.
Weir:
I understand the Minister’s position.
However, given that at least two systems run side by side in the CSA,
the unfairness felt by many parents will be made worse by the fact that
there will be a third system in CMEC, that one organisation will be
running all three, and that it will be several years before all cases
get on to the new system. The public perception is that it is a new
organisation with a new system. Many of us fear that the fact that
there are three different systems will undermine that perception and
might institutionalise in CMEC the problems that exist in the
CSA.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I do not share that concern. There is a
difference between a transition between institutions—such as
moving from the agency to CMEC—which is what we are talking
about, and a transition between formulae, which is what happened within
the agency after the 2003 change. Those are not the same thing. In
fact, the formula change that came in as a result of the Child Support,
Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 has been widely accepted and is
supported as being a clearer way of arriving at maintenance assessments
than was the previous model.
Mr.
Boswell:
Does the Minister agree that it will be important
to give consideration to the right kind of communication to service
users? It would be possible to drown them with too much information, or
the wrong kind, or to stir up or alarm them unnecessarily about
destabilising changes in the arrangements. He wants a seamless
transition of institutions, which is sensible, but at the same time
there will be words on the street and people will jump to conclusions.
Will he think long and hard, in conjunction with the new management, to
ensure that this is got right and explained both passively, on websites
and so forth, and by active communication as
well?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Yes, it has to be seamless for
clients. That is the bottom line. We are trying to ensure that we are
providing the best possible level of service to clients. The smooth
transition from one service to the other is of critical importance and
will, of course, inform us as we think about how we deal with the
detail of the switch, over time, from agency to
commission.
Danny
Alexander:
Hearing the Minister’s response to the
intervention from the hon. Member for Angus led me to feel rather sorry
for the staff of the CSA, about whom we will talk more under clause 13.
However, it is appropriate to mention that, because we have already
debated how staff numbers are dwindling. The Minister has answered that
point—not to my satisfaction—but it now seems, from the
way he did so, that staff in the same teams will, potentially, be
dealing with three different systems for a while and there will still
be a limited number of staff. That is a critical issue. What are the
Minister’s intentions in terms of staff training, so that people
can manage the substantially increased work that it sounds as though
they will have? If necessary, is he prepared to make the resources
available, so that the commission can employ the additional people that
may be necessary to handle this transfer of
functions?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The hon. Gentleman is taking me into the next
debate. Suffice it to say it will be for the commission to devise the
necessary transitional arrangements and for it, as I have said to him
before, to determine the appropriate staffing level. There will be a
constant dialogue on the resources between the commission’s
senior officials and my Department. I think that his points are
covered, but I will have more to say about staffing when we get to
clause 13.
We are
currently dealing with clause 12, which is a key element of the Bill
and transfers to the commission those functions that
the CSA currently carries out on behalf of the Secretary of State. For
example, from the day appointed for the transfer, the commission will
have responsibility for functions relating to the assessment,
collection and enforcement of maintenance and to the duty to have
regard to the welfare of the child. To be precise, the clause transfers
the statutory child support functions as amended by the Bill. The
transfer of staff and of property, rights and liabilities are provided
for in subsequent clauses. The clause also gives effect to
schedules 2 and 3. A few functions are excepted
from transfer, as set out in subsection (2): some are retained solely
by the Secretary of State, while others are both retained and
transferred to the commission. I would like to mention each of those
briefly and explain why they are
excepted.
The right
of appeal will be both conferred on the commission and retained by the
Secretary of State. Although the commission will be a non-departmental
public body, the policy that it operates is still ultimately the
responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is
therefore essential that the Secretary of State is still party to the
proceedings for any appeal to the child support commissioner or a
higher court, so that he can challenge legal interpretations that might
undermine the
policy. Functions
under section 46 of the 1991 Act relate to decisions on the amount of
benefit a person is to receive. They do not relate to child support,
and are therefore not transferred to the commission. The power to
authorise a responsible person for the disclosure of information will
be both conferred on the commission and retained by the Secretary of
State. It is important that the Secretary of State retains that
function, as he will continue to have some child support functions,
such as making legislation, and his work may involve handling
information. However, it will also be necessary for the function to be
exercised by the commission, and paragraph 16 of schedule 7 makes the
necessary amendment to ensure that that is
so.
Legislative
functions—that is, commencement powers, powers to make
consequential amendments and the power to make secondary legislation
under the 1991 Act—will also remain solely with the Secretary of
State, because it is he or she who is ultimately responsible for
legislation.
Finally,
the provisions of the 1991 Act which provide for the Secretary of State
for Scotland to pay travel expenses for a person attending proceedings
before a child support commissioner in Scotland, will remain with that
Secretary of State and will not be transferred.
5.45
pm
Establishing
the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is a key part of
creating the new and radically different child maintenance system that
we seek. Transferring the revised child support functions and duties to
the commission simply allows us to establish it as a new independent
body, specifically empowered and focused on promoting parental
responsibility and choice and maximising maintenance
arrangements.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 12
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2 agreed
to.
| 
