HC Deb 18 July 1991 vol 195 cc546-9
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 19, line 19 leave out 'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to' and insert 'The Secretary of State may'. This is purely a drafting amendment.

Mr. Allen

It is not purely a drafting amendment. Will the Minister say why the amendment waters down the Secretary of State's duty to collect maintenance payments, and what are the existing and continuing criteria on which the Secretary of State will collect such payments?

The Solicitor-General

It is a drafting amendment. As drafted, the clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to collect maintenance whenever a maintenance assessment has been made. That is not the policy intention. Our preference is for the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement between themselves—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of that—on the arrangement for the payment of maintenance rather than for the agency to have to intervene. In the case of a mandatory application under clause 6, we would need to be sure that any such private arrangement was secure. In the case of a voluntary application under clause 4, it would be up to the party involved whether the agency was to become involved in the collection of maintenance. In that sense, it is a drafting amendment which will give effect to what I am sure everyone will agree is the right policy.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Emma Nicholson

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 20, line 8 at end add— '(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State in circumstances where the amount of family credit or any another benefit of prescribed kind paid to the person with the care of the child or children has been calculated on the basis that the absent parent is not paying any child support maintenance.'. Clause 28 is very important in considering the way in which children will be supported. I tabled the probing amendment in order to ask the Secretary of State to consider more carefully the ways in which maintenance will be paid when the absent parent pays no child support maintenance. The amendment is self-explanatory and I am confident that the Minister will give me a full reply. He will know that I am especially concerned about cases in which the absent parent has not been forced to pay any child maintenance, and I ask him to make regulations to provide for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State. I should be grateful for a full reply, but my hon. Friend will understand that this is a probing amendment.

Mr. Allen

The people who are dealt with in this clause are on very low incomes such as those on income support. A lone parent with a child under 11 years of age will be on a weekly income of £65.40. When one is trying to exist on such a low income, one's main concern is the security of that income. Any variation in that income is the difference between being able to pay a bill or not, between being able to buy a pair of shoes for a child or not, or to buy food for oneself or for the child. The amendment is extremely helpful, which is why we support the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) in her efforts to get an answer from the Minister.

Currently, in nearly a quarter of cases in which maintenance is relevant, the Department pays lone parents income support gross, and collects maintenance. That guarantees the parents security of income when maintenance is irregular or fluctuating, as it often is. The Government accept that important principle, but at present it applies only in respect of income support. The amendment would extend similar arrangements to parents with care who are attempting to enter the labour market.

Such a move would ensure that the Government's work incentives would not be undermined by the risk of insecurity of income preventing parents with care, or their partners, from contemplating entering paid employment for 16 hours a week or more, even with the help of family credit or disability working allowance.

The Minister may not wish to accept the amendment in its current form, but he would help such people greatly by accepting that a problem exists and that it could be tackled by means of a similar amendment.

Mr. Jack

I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend an undertaking, which I have echoed, that we would give careful consideration to the problem of interrupted maintenance payments, especially in respect of families receiving family credit. We want to find a way of responding to the spirit and content of my hon. Friend's remarks, and also to the genuine concern expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

The difficulty is, however, that, unless we throw over what is generally accepted to be a good principle of family credit—that of providing an uninterrupted award for 26 weeks at a time—it has not yet proved possible to accommodate some of the variables that could arise if the payment of maintenance was interrupted. I do not wish to raise hon. Members' hopes unnecessarily: we may never be able to accomplish that.

I can give some encouraging information, however. If the initial maintenance award—which may not have been in place at all before the advent of the Child Support Agency—comes during the period of an existing award of family credit, the structure of the benefit will provide protection for the family concerned. Their existing award cannot be changed. The additional income will come at a time when budgeting is based on the present level of income from work, combined with family credit and other social security benefits. If there is so much as a fear at the back of the mind of the parent with care that payment might be interrupted, the addition to the family finances can be retained as a "buffer state" against such an eventuality.

I hope that I do not do my hon. Friend an injustice when I say that, according to the wording of the amendment, the Secretary of State would keep half the money. I am not entirely sure that that is what she wants. I believe that both she and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North want to ensure that the maximum amount is available to families.

Miss Emma Nicholson

I trust that, if the amendment did mean that, the Secretary of State would give his half back.

As I have said, this is a probing amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister responded swiftly to my request for a meeting, and we shall discuss the amendment then. That is why I did not go into much detail. I hope that we shall come up with a solution, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering me the opportunity.

The amendment was not designed to enrich the Secretary of State, although, knowing him, I am sure that he would have given the money back. Perhaps we should try it.

Mr. Jack

In the same spirit of generosity, I accept my hon. Friend's explanation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to establish a small fund in respect of family credit.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that, as we rightly focus on specific parts of the Bill, we are in danger of losing sight of the whole package. For the first time, an agency is being established that will act extremely quickly on behalf of parents in care in the event of an interruption in the flow of maintenance. I have discussed the matter with those who will have the job of implementing the measure, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will react with all possible speed, enabling, for instance, the placing of a deduction-of earnings order on anyone who interrupts the flow of maintenance. The agency's prime task will be to support parents with care, and to ensure the maintenance of income for those on family credit wherever possible.

As the hon. Gentleman is keenly aware, although there may be a variable in payment for those on income support —wherever possible, we encourage individuals to maintain their personal methods of payment—if that is interrupted, income support can be paid gross.

I look forward to my discussions with my hon. Friend, and I hope that, following my reasssurances, she will not press the amendment to a Division.

Miss Nicholson

I am grateful for those reassurances. I am also grateful to the Minister for allowing me an appointment with him. I warn him that I shall arrive with three different formulae in an attempt to deal with this difficult problem. I am sure that one, if not all, will meet with his approval, and that he will be longing to implement all three at once.

Let me be serious for a moment about this very serious subject, and reiterate my concern for women who wish to return to work. I have always believed that real freedom is economic freedom; once a person has a wage packet, however slender, he or she can stand up and be counted, look the world in the face and support dependants with more confidence. The weakness of any form of state benefit is the problem of lack of maintenance from the recipient's former other half. That is bound to make parents in care less than confident about the future. I have forwarded to my hon. Friend letters from lone mothers who want to return to work; they are perhaps my main concern.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that my hon. Friend and I will have an extremely full debate, and that I have a tripartite bundle of perfect proposals for him to accept.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to