COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 22 July 1991)

§ The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.

When the Bill was first introduced into this House, it contained in Clause 22 a provision for reducing the benefit of the parent with care in a case where she has failed without good cause to comply with a requirement to authorise recovery of child support maintenance. This clause attracted a good deal of debate in Committee. Your Lordships decided to remove the clause from the Bill following a vote during Committee stage. The arguments have been considered very carefully, as have the views expressed by all those who made representations to us. We have concluded that it would be right to reintroduce provision for a reduction in benefit. But the new clause differs in very substantial respects from the former Clause 22 because we have recognised some of the matters which have been raised.

We have said all along that, in the same way that absent parents who can afford to pay maintenance for their children should not simply be able to choose to put the burden on the taxpayer, so parents with care have a responsibility to do what they can.

We have considered very carefully the arguments made by your Lordships and the points put to us subsequently and we see no reason to change our view on the principle. The situation is that what one might call an encouragement—an increase—would be extremely costly because most people will give the necessary co-operation. The difficulty is to devise a suitable sanction. We have made changes in the way in which we suggest that the procedure should work.

We do not believe that it is right that a parent should be able lightly to choose not to seek maintenance for the child and pass the task of supporting her child to the taxpayer instead. If there are grounds to believe that requiring her to authorise the Secretary of State to seek maintenance puts her or the child at risk of harm or undue distress, it is different. We have already put forward that amendment. That is not the sort of case which this new clause is intended to cover. This clause looks at the position where, after having given the parent every opportunity to reconsider and explain her reasons, it is not considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is any risk of the type envisaged. These are the cases in which we propose that there should be a reduction in her personal benefit. This is important. Therefore I should like to take your Lordships through the new clause, expanding on what we propose to do where necessary.

Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances in which this new clause will apply; namely, that the caring parent has not complied with the obligations imposed on her by Clause 6 to provide authorisation and information to the Secretary of State to enable him to seek child maintenance from the absent parent.

I shall say a few words here about how we intend to deal with cases in which caring parents refuse to comply with the provisions of Clause 6. Where a parent with care who is required to give the Secretary of State authorisation to seek maintenance refuses to do so, we intend that there should be a "cooling-off 544 period—say, six weeks—during which time she can think over the whole question and decide to comply or provide the Secretary of State with reasons, or to expand on the reasons that she has already given for her refusal. I should just like to make perfectly clear that this cooling-off period occurs before the case is referred to the child support officer to consider action under this new clause. It is not the specified period mentioned in subsection (2) of the new clause, about which I shall say more shortly.

We have spoken at some length about the types of circumstance which would provide good grounds for non-co-operation; that is, where there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or any children living with her if the maintenance application were to proceed. I believe that there can be no doubt that we have responded positively to people's anxieties on the issue of good cause. I should like to acknowledge the help that noble Lords have been able to give us on that matter in focusing more on the consequences than on the actions which might give rise to the reasonable cause.

If at the end of that six-week period the caring parent has declined to give authorisation and has not provided good reasons, her case will be referred to a child support officer, who may, under subsection (2) of this new clause, give her written notice requiring her either to comply or to give him reasons for not complying within a period to be specified in regulations. It may be useful for noble Lords to know that, for this second period—that is, following the cooling-off period already provided when the Secretary of State considered the issue—we think that a shorter length, perhaps of two weeks, would suffice. This is a further opportunity for her to reconsider and provide further information.

Subsection (3) requires the child support officer, when this second period has come to an end, to have regard to any reasons provided by the parent. If he considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or any children living with her if the caring parent were to be required to comply, then under subsection (4) he can take no further action under this section; that is, there will be no reduction in the parent's benefit.

I should just like to point out that the child support officer is having to make the same sort of judgment as the Secretary of State has to make under subsection (1A) of Clause 6. It is important to emphasise that this ensures that two different people are looking at the question of the reasons for non-co-operation. Only where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a risk to the parent or her children will he pass the case to a child support officer, and only when this second person considers there are no such reasonable grounds will he issue a reduced benefit direction.

That direction will be copied to the parent, who will have the right of appeal against the decision of the child support officer to a child support appeal tribunal. The direction will specify the amount and duration of the benefit direction and this will be set out in regulations.

545 In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pressed us to say what were the Government's intentions in respect of the size and duration of the reduction. At the earlier time we were lot able to be too specific in answer to the question. But I can now respond. This is a very difficult area and we have given a great deal of thought to it. We feel that the rate and period of reduction need to be pitched at the minimum level to make caring parents think seriously about non-co-operation without good grounds.

We propose that the benefit reduction should last for 18 months. For the first six months the reduction will be set at 20 per cent. of income support adult personal allowance—just under £8 a week at current benefit levels. For the final 12 months, the reduction rate will be lowered to 10 per cent. We believe that this level and duration of reduction achieves the right sort of balance to encourage the parent to think about her responsibilities and the benefits of maintenance to the child. I f, in the light of experience, it turns out that this rate and duration of reduction is not pitched at the right level, then powers exist to change it. This is one of the advantages of setting them out in regulations. It is open to the caring parent to comply with the provisions of Clause 6 at any time. If she does so, the reduced benefit direction will be withdrawn.

In this connection, one has to think not only of the caring parent but also of the person who has the liability for the maintenance. We must be careful not to encourage a situation in which that person can buy off his liability by seeking to buy off the co-operation of the caring parent. It is very important to have in mind that not only is the caring parent involved in this matter but also a person who might wish to seek to buy off his liability: therefore the price must have regard to that as well. It is not just the caring parent whom one has to consider, it is also the possibility of inducement being offered by the person who is subject to the liability.

To sum up, we believe that the provisions contained in this new clause are both important and necessary. We think it right that the caring parent should think carefully about the advantages to her children of maintenance. It would provide a regular income which can be of considerable help if she wishes to return to work. For caring parents on family credit or disability working allowance there is an immediate advantage, as the first £15 of any maintenance will be disregarded. Before reducing benefit, we shall be giving the caring parent ample opportunity either to comply with Clause 6 or to make representations as to why she should not comply. But ultimately, if the caring parent decides without good reason not to comply, then we feel that a benefit reduction is in order.

I commend this new clause to your Lordships.