WELFARE OF CHILDREN: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE (Hansard, 18 July 1991)

§ Mr. Jack
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 8.

§ Mr. Jack
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor accepted an amendment that was tabled on the Bill's Third Reading in another place, but made it clear that further refinements would be necessary. New clause 5 is the result of those considerations of the refinements that might be made. In its revised form, it replaces the present clause 2.

§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles)
We welcome the new clause. There have been great discussions about the existing clause 2, which the new clause will replace with wording that is more applicable to the welfare of children.
Throughout our discussions on this Bill, certain comparisons were made with the Children Bill, which is soon to become law. The phrase used was that "the 524 interests of the child should be paramount". I should have preferred that definition to the wording of the new clause, which states that the officer shall have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision. Nevertheless, we welcome the new clause.
I am, however, anxious to ensure that the principle that the welfare of the child should be considered in the exercise of any discretionary power conferred on a child support officer should relate to the whole Bill. When we discuss clause 43 and the amendments to be tabled to it, we hope that the Government will accept our amendment No. 5, which seeks to change the current rigid level of benefit reduction into a more flexible discretionary power for the child support officers in the case of mothers who feel unable to co-operate with the child support officers. The Minister will have time to consider that point because we have not yet reached consideration of clause 43, but if the Government accept those provisions they would, indeed, be having due regard to the welfare of the child. Perhaps the Government will also reconsider some of the Bill's more punitive aspects because if they do not, as the Bill stands, the welfare of the child will be affected.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and ask the Minister whether he is sure that the wording of the new clause will suffice. Although I accept that it is an improvement, it still uses the phrase, any child likely to be affected". The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, on the executive committee of which I serve, together with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who gives distinguished service to the society and who will seek to move an amendment later, has drawn a relevant case to my attention. A citizens advice bureau on Merseyside has reported the case of a client being called into the local office of the Department of Social Security and asked to sign a form stating that he was the father of a child and responsible for its maintenance. The child in question was six years old, but the client was unaware of his existence. If the client is unaware of a child's existence, surely it is likely that the officers who are charged with administering the provisions might also be unaware of the child's existence.
In such circumstances, unless we have real assurances that great care will be exercised, not merely is an injustice likely to be done, but a great deal of harm and distress could be caused, especially to second marriages and subsequent families. Although the new clause is an improvement, I wonder whether the provisions are enough to ensure that unfortunate consequences do not arise in many cases.

§ Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)
I shall not keep the Under-Secretary of State too long because, as someone who supports new clause 5, I merely wish to clarify one point. The way in which the provisions work will become apparent only when the Department issues guidelines about the interpretation of "discretion" and the regulations. Will the Minister confirm that, when the new clause is passed, his Department will publish guidelines on how the officer is to interpret the discretionary powers? In the past, when discretionary powers have been given, it has been known for the Department to issue guidelines that undermine or restrict the way in which the discretionary power can be used.
525 Secondly, will the Department provide for welfare rights groups, women's groups, solicitors and others, as soon as practicable after the implementation of the Bill, a report on the types of discretion used in various agency offices so that we can build up a picture of what discretion is used and ensure that it is even-handed in relation to case work? If discretion is not applied properly and in the wide sense in which hon. Members on both sides of the House intend it to be used, will the Government take steps to ensure proper use of discretion so that no decision leaves a child or family with less income than it would have had?
For example, in a marginal case a mother may claim that violence could occur if the former partner was reintroduced into the relationship as a result of the agency asking her to disclose information about him. A former partner might seek access as a result of the involvement of the agency in discussions about the matter at hand. Will discretion be in favour of the woman in all circumstances so that the family's benefit is not reduced? She should be given the benefit of the doubt and the officer's discretion should not be curtailed in such a way as to mitigate against the child.

§ Mr. Jack
The debate has been a short but important review of an important change which the Government introduced after the debate in another place.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) talked about the importance—I think that she used the word "paramount"—of the interests of children. The terms of the new clause show how we have sought to extend the approach used where matters affecting the welfare of the child are clearly prescribed in the Bill to areas where those actions are not so prescribed. I hope that the hon. Lady takes it as a measure of our good intent that we did not resist the amendment in another place but have sought to widen it fully to reflect the importance of the welfare of the child.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made some interesting and perceptive comments. I hope that he will be able to remain with us for the debates on subsequent clauses. I shall deal later with the way in which the measure will operate, especially with reference to second marriages. It will be incumbent on a child support officer to take into account the welfare of any child. The hon. Gentleman will already have made the bridge in his own mind. I shall deal with that a little later.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made another important point about how we are to guide people. Child support is still a sensitive area. While we have conceded the point, we still have further thinking to do about the precise nature of guidance to child support officers on carrying out this sensitive work. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will read carefully his words and ensure that they are properly taken into account.

§ Mr. McCartney
I am happy that the Minister has given a commitment that the Government are still considering the best way of drafting the advice. Will that consideration include giving organisations involved in looking after children or representing mothers an opportunity to comment on the advice before it is finally published?

§ Mr. Jack
If the hon. Gentleman had been with us in Committee, he would have heard me give the assurance on several occasions—I am happy to reiterate it—that in framing the regulations and in our other work on the Bill we shall continue to consult on a wide basis, especially with many of the organisations that have already written to us to make representations. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that we have met some of their requirements. We shall certainly consult.