HL Deb 16 July 1992 vol 539 cc340-60

12.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved. These regulations have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and have been approved by affirmative resolution in another place. The first child support statutory instrument which is before us today is the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations.

It had been my intention to speak to all four child support regulations at the same time but after representations from my noble kinsman Lord Russell I have agreed to separate the first from the others. However, if the House finds it convenient to speak more generally in the course of the debate on the first, I shall have no particular objection.

It may also be convenient for the House if 1 briefly outline the common purpose which lies behind all four statutory instruments for debate today and then dwell in slightly greater detail on the first set of regulations.

The regulations which we are debating today are the first to be made under the Child Support Act 1991, which provided the framework for the Government's new scheme for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance. As the House will no doubt be aware, the current system for child maintenance does not work as it should. Not least, it is uncertain and fragmented and as a result only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers received regular child maintenance in 1989. The White Paper Children Come First, followed by the Child Support Act itself, represents the Government's response to those problems.

Regulations making provision for the collection and enforcement of maintenance will be laid shortly by negative procedure; and further provisions covering the detail of the appeals system, jurisdictional issues, fees and transitional issues will be brought forward later in the year.

I turn now to the maintenance assessment procedure regulations. The majority of these regulations deal with technical and procedural matters such as applications, notifications and terminations. It may therefore be helpful if I highlight only two of the provisions which are likely to be of particular interest to the House this afternoon.

First, Regulations 8 and 9 deal with interim maintenance assessments, which I remind the House are designed to be used only when an absent parent is refusing to provide the information needed to make a full assessment. It is important that interim maintenance assessments should retain their deterrent effect, but the House may wish to be aware that, in response to comments made during the consultation exercise on the content of the child support regulations, we have reduced the level of an interim maintenance assessment and extended the warning period before it can be imposed.

The second area is, I know, of much greater concern to the House. Regulations 34 to 50 provide for a reduction in benefit to be made where a parent with care in receipt of certain benefits fails, without good reason, to comply with obligations to allow maintenance to he recovered from the absent parent.

The House will be aware that there was much discussion of this issue during the passage of the Child Support Bill, that the Government responded constructively to address the legitimate concerns expressed then and that they built in a number of safeguards to protect the position of the parent with care. We made provision in the Child Support Act to deal with cases where there would be a risk of harm or undue distress either to the parent or to any child living with her. The provision gives scope to enable each case to be looked at individually. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that co-operation would lead to harm or undue distress, then the requirement to co-operate will be waived.

The parent with care will have a six-week period after the Child Support Agency has first contacted her about non-co-operation: she will have six weeks to consider her position and make further representations. At the end of that period the case will go to a child support officer for further consideration, and the child support officer will give the parent with care a further two weeks in which either to comply or to make representations. Only after that can a reduced benefit direction be issued.

As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, when the Child Support Act passed through this House, we were minded then to set the deduction at 20 per cent. of benefit for 26 weeks and 10 per cent. for a further 52 weeks. That is what the regulations should do. I should also remind the House and stress that the deduction can only be made once. There is no question of that benefit's sanction being reimposed at the end of the period if the parent with care still refuses to co-operate.

As regards the evidence required to support a claim that distress or hardship would result, I remind the House that it has been made clear on a number of occasions that, while corroboration will be welcomed, uncorroborated evidence of a parent will be accepted unless there are strong reasons not to do so.

I accept that this is a difficult area. I can assure the House that we shall be monitoring these cases most carefully to see how the provisions work in practice.

However, it remains true that both parents have responsibilities to their children. An absent parent should not be able to refuse to pay maintenance for his child. In the same way, a parent with care should not without good cause be able to refuse to co-operate in obtaining maintenance for her child, and thereby pass all the responsibility over to taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own to bring up. For that reason, this is a necessary and important measure.

I commend these regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)

12.45 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining these complicated regulations. We have still a great deal of business to get through today and I therefore accept the noble Lord's invitation to make an en bloc speech and deal with all the regulations, intervening extremely briefly only if I have to when he proceeds to the next regulations. I do not propose to go through each regulation in detail. I should just like to deal with particular matters of concern or where there is some doubt over the exact implication or operation of the regulations.

The first point—this will not surprise the Minister—is one which exercised this House and another place very much indeed during the passage of the Bill. It covers the situation where the parent with care does not wish to name the absent parent. Are we to understand now that this is a matter to be left entirely to the discretion of the child support officer? What is the guidance that will be given to the CSOs? Will that guidance be published? Will it be published in draft so that all those interested in the matter will have a chance to comment?

Can the Minister also tell the House the rights of appeal which the lone parent will have when the CSO, in a sense, has ruled against him or her? Are there grounds for refusal to reveal the name of the absent parent besides the fear of violence or harassment? Will other grounds be accepted?

The Minister will remember the debate about the formula for assessing child maintenance. The algebra in Schedule 1 of the Bill has now been turned into figures. We welcome the Government's change of heart regarding the original proposal for a reduction in the amount of maintenance assessment when the child or children reach the age of 11.

Obviously—I am sure that the Minister expected to hear this—the major criticism of the regulations, as it was in the Bill itself, concerns the benefit penalty. We understand that over 100 organisations provided evidence during the consultation process in the drafting of these regulations. I believe that that evidence is not available en bloc but is still in the department. If we wish to find out what the organisations said, we shall have to approach them individually.

Can the Minister say how many of the organisations consulted in the consultation period supported the concept of the benefit penalty? Perhaps I may also ask a question which has been asked many times before in this House: how can the welfare of the child be paramount if the benefits are reduced via the penalty system? This does not hurt the parent; it hurts the child. So who is being punished?

There is also concern over the size and length of the benefit reduction. It is felt that it is harsh and must therefore have a negative effect on the welfare of children in one-parent families. Also the reduction seems to fail to incorporate the safeguards which exist within the comparable voluntary unemployment deduction for lessening the effects of the deduction where that is necessitated by the circumstances of the claimant. The Minister will know that the voluntary unemployment deduction ranges from one day to 26 weeks, whereas the deduction under the Child Support Act runs for a fixed length—a fifth over 26 weeks and then 10 per cent. for a further 52 weeks. The voluntary unemployment deduction, which I think can be compared because it is a benefit penalty, also contains provision for the deduction to be halved when a member of the family is seriously ill or pregnant. No such provision exists within the maintenance deduction. I am sure that the House will be grateful if the Minister can explain in a little more detail why there is that difference.

Another problem relates to second families on low income. Will the majority of any increase in the income of the second family be diverted to the parent with care? What are the safeguards in the regulations to prevent the two families being forced into poverty? What is to stop some lone parents being worse off through the loss of certain benefits when maintenance is paid?

It has been pointed out by the Child Poverty Action Group that some lone parents may be lifted off income support and will he worse off when the ex-partner agrees to pay maintenance. The group cites the case of a mother with four school-aged children who is £20 a week worse off due to the loss of free school meals after her ex-partner agreed to pay maintenance.

On the basis of receiving maintenance, other lone parents may decide that they can now find some paid employment. They can of course claim family credit if they are working at least 16 hours a week. As well as the loss of benefits which are passported by income support, there are other ways in which that group may be worse off than on income support. We know that the take-up of family credit is low, about 50 per cent., compared with the take-up of income support for lone parents. Family credit does not cover mortgage payments. A number of women remain in the family home to avoid disruption to the children. If the absent parent fails to pay maintenance and the amount of family credit payable is fixed for a six-month period, no mechanism is currently available to make up the shortfall if the maintenance agreed is not received. The Minister will know that the CPAG has pressed the Government to guarantee payment in such cases. It will be helpful if he can comment on that.

Shared care is a complicated area. There are complicated rules to deal with the situation of care which is shared between the parent with care and the absent parent. However, there is a feeling that the rules are inadequate. Parents who care for children for less than two nights a week on average will not be recognised as doing so by the formula. I am advised that an absent parent could look after children throughout the school holidays yet have to continue to pay full maintenance to the other parent. In the same way, no account will be taken if an absent parent cares for the children every other weekend. That anomaly needs to be addressed. It could lead to disruption of the arrangements for the children; and the children will suffer enough anyway as a result of the family circumstances.

Also how will the income of the absent parent be calculated if he or she is self-employed, with a variable weekly or monthly income?

Those are all important points of detail. I do not wish to detain the House because there is much business to be dealt with. I do not propose to go over again the debate that we had concerning the very wide regulation-making powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not present. I am sure that the Minister is pleased because the noble and learned Lord would have had much to say about the fact that some regulations which are retrospective amend the Act. I do not need to mention the phrase "Henry VIII" for the Minister to know what I refer to. We protested about the Henry VIII clauses when the Act was discussed. Some of our worst fears have come true.

As we know, the regulations concern some of the poorest people in society. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the publication only yesterday of official figures which indicate that one in four children is living in poverty, with a higher proportion in the lone parent families. The poorest families have suffered a 6 per cent. cut in real income since 1979. In 1979,5 million people were living below half average income; in 1989,12 million were living below half average income. Will the Minister confirm whether those figures were available before 9th April, the date of the general election, but were held back? Will he comment on the fact that when the Government can hold the figures back no longer they choose to publish them on the eve of the parliamentary Recess?

Nothing in the regulations causes me to alter the view that I expressed consistently when the Act was before us. I have always believed that it was designed as much with the saving of public expenditure in mind as looking after the welfare of the lone parent family and children and parents with the care of their children. Despite the improvements that the Government have made during the process of consultation, which we welcome, nothing in the regulations suggests that I was wrong in that original belief.

Earl Russell

My Lords, first, I refer to the good news. I thank my noble kinsman and his department for the care and courtesy that they have put into the process of consultation over the draft of the regulations. It was welcome. It has resulted in some improvements. However, the regulations before us are so long and complex that I was going to describe them as a mini-Bill but decided that I had to delete the adjectival qualification. Were we treating the matter as a Second Reading to be followed by a Committee and Report stage, we would by no means have too much time to consider the business in the regulations.

I also wish to thank my noble kinsman for the care and courtesy that he has put into correspondence over the past few days which has saved the time of the House on several points that we need not now discuss.

I am pleased that the regulations are under the affirmative procedure. Some noble Lords who have read the Minute may have noticed that I have tabled a Prayer about other regulations under the negative procedure. I have been told that we do not have time to debate that before the Recess and that after the Recess—because judicial sitting days count as praying days—I shall be out of time. Therefore were the regulations not under the affirmative procedure we might not have had a debate. I wish to express my gratitude to those noble Lords, most notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who have pressed for the affirmative procedure.

I wish too to draw my noble kinsman's attention to the number of reports that we have received of officers jumping the gun and attempting to disentitle mothers from benefits before the regulations are in force. I have received such reports from the National Council for One Parent Families, from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and from Gingerbread. They all say exactly the same. Gingerbread reports 66 cases in the past three months. The greatest dismay comes from the National Council for One Parent Families, which met the chairman of the Benefits Agency in March on that very point. It was offered assurances, which it welcomed, that that would not occur again. I has. I shall be grateful if my noble kinsman will undertake to look into the matter and to ensure that the regulations will not be enforced until their commencement.

My noble kinsman has told us many times that the Department of Social Security deals with matters of principle in the Act and with minor matters in regulations. I am occasionally somewhat surprised by the definition of "minor matters". I wonder about the definition of major matters. I am reminded of my favourite quotation from Edward Gibbon, which states that the graver charges against the supreme Pontiff were dropped and they persisted only with the charges of murder, heresy, rape, arson, piracy, sodomy and incest. I have always wondered what Gibbon meant by the graver charges. I wonder what the Department of Social Security means by major matters.

As I understand it, disentitlement to benefit is a penalty on a level with loss of liberty. We would take a dim view of a Bill which established a power of imprisonment and left the length of imprisonment to he fixed by the Secretary of State by regulation. I know that the principle of disentitlement has been discussed by the House. But the amount of disentitlement is now before us for the first time. I believe that of the two choices I would probably prefer imprisonment, although my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich would no doubt tell me that I would be wise to find out first in which prison I was to be incarcerated. If I were in prison I would have three meals a day and a roof over my head. With disentitlement to benefit one cannot always be sure of that.

Nevertheless, I concede that these regulations contain some minor matters, and I shall mention one of them in passing. Schedule 1, paragraph 3, relates to full-time education being defined by the number of hours of formal instruction. Where sixth forms are now developing, especially in the humanities, people are given books to read and told to go away and write essays. The department cannot do it that way. I have no objection to its aims; but what it is attempting will not work. I shall ask once again why disability working allowance is a prescribed benefit for the purposes of these regulations. I know that my noble kinsman has explained that before, but I have not understood him. Maybe I am stupid; but I should like to try again.

The amount of disentitlement is 20 per cent. of benefit for 26 weeks, followed by 10 per cent. for 52 weeks. I shall take the rates for those under the age of 25 because often single mothers are young. According to my calculations, what is left will come to £26.72 for 26 weeks, and £30.08 for 52 weeks. I wish to ask my noble kinsman another question and, if I may impersonate Winnie the Pooh, an answer is required. Does he believe that the single mother is capable of living on that amount and that she can do so without harming the health of the child?

I am also anxious about the duration of the disentitlement. Hardship is cumulative; shoes wear out, coats become threadbare, socks get holes in them, leaks in the roof become more serious, and so forth. Therefore, a long-lasting disentitlement grows progressively more severe. In that context, I ask my noble kinsman whether mothers who have been disentitled to benefit are construed to be too poor to have loans from the Social Fund. I have previously asked my noble kinsman whether he can explain why it is right that people should be too poor to be helped by the social security system. I ask him again. If such people are not construed to be too poor to be helped by the Social Fund, does he believe that they could carry the burden of repayment?

One aspect has changed since we debated this matter; it is the publication of the excellent Government White Paper, The Health of the Nation. I have studied the excellent section in the White Paper of the link between health and diet. I find it thoroughly convincing and wonder whether government policies are in conflict with each other. In future, will my noble kinsman's department when considering income support levels consult the Department of Health about the cost of an adequate diet? Will he refer the amount of money that mothers are receiving under this regulation to the Department of Health's committee on the medical aspects of food policy; known, perhaps appropriately, as COMA?

But if my noble kinsman assures me that single mothers can survive on £26.72 per week, that will not necessarily protect him against the charge of using starvation as an instrument of policy. He is familiar with the problems of deductions from social security benefit; Social Fund loans, gas, water and electricity, over-payments and so forth. I have done my sums on the subject and I shall go into them afterwards if my noble kinsman wishes. I have calculated that with maximum deductions, benefit could be reduced to as little as £13.30 per week. I do not believe that my noble kinsman will say that a woman can live on that. For the sake of clarification, will he say whether other deductions affecting a single mother disentitled to 20 per cent. of her benefit, which are normally assessed as a percentage, will be assessed as a percentage of the full benefit or the reduced benefit? That could be a vital issue.

I welcomed what my noble kinsman said about the absence of double jeopardy—I am glad of that. I also welcome the concession made on Third Reading of the Bill about cases in which enforcement might cause harm and undue distress to the mother. People outside this Chamber are worried because that is discretionary. I understand why it is of the essence of the concession and of its value that it has to be discretionary. However, will he confirm that he will publish that concession in the guidance and stress that most strongly? For many centuries this has been an area in which some of those involved in enforcement have been zealots and those zealots need controlling.

My noble kinsman said that disentitlement will not occur without good reason. I accept that it will not happen without what the Department of Social Security believes to be good reason. But the Department of Social Security does not know or understand the secrets of everybody's marriage—I do not believe that even Dr. Kinsey did so. In many cases people may feel a justified anxiety about contact with their former partner for reasons which are too much of the atmosphere to be capable of being explained to a child support officer. I believe that we have an issue which must be regarded as being covered by the principle of subsidiarity. My noble kinsman should be ready to find single mothers who react to these investigations in very much the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would react to a directive from Brussels—they would feel that it was not proper.

There is an important underlying disagreement between us. The department will say that it does not intend to produce such hardship because its intention is to achieve compliance and not to inflict the penalty. The department believes that women will act for rational economic motives and therefore faced with the threat of penalty will name the father. But love and reproduction are not entirely rational areas. I do not believe that the department has at all taken on board the intensity of women's resistance to such personal investigations. Compliance has been attempted on and off for six centuries, even to the point of withdrawing the midwife in the middle of labour if the mother would not name the father. I do not believe that cruelty can go much further than that; but it still did not produce compliance.

I believe that these regulations will fail as such attempts have always failed in the past. I do not usually go in for prophecy. If my noble kinsman asks me why I hold that belief, I shall reply,"Six centuries of human experience". What does my noble kinsman have to set against that? Why does he feel that human nature has changed? I used to believe that it was part of Conservative philosophy that government could not change human nature. If that has ceased to be part of Conservative philosophy, I should like to know when, why and under what circumstances.

My Lords, I am normally allergic to the more militant forms of feminist. I do not like being disliked for something which I cannot help and of which, in any case, I am not ashamed. But there are some moments when I see what the world would look like if I were a militant feminist. This is one of them and I do not like it!

Lord Rix

My Lords, I rise today to speak on behalf of disabled children who certainly have had six centuries in regard to disregard behind them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for agreeing to the widening of the debate at this stage.

I know that MENCAP, Barnardos and the Spastics Society made strong representations during the passage of the original Bill with regard to the process for maintenance payments for disabled children. The organisations argued for the additional costs related to bringing up a disabled child to be reflected in the formula which will now be used for the calculation of maintenance in ordinary circumstances. There were good reasons for that. First, the formula had been designed to make the amount a lone parent received in maintenance more predictable and therefore able to be decided more quickly. Secondly, it removed the stigma, cost and unpredictability of the court process.

Those reasons hold good for families with disabled children just as much as others. However, the conclusion was that for full assessment of the maintenance needed for a disabled child the courts would remain the decision-making body. I believe that going to the courts could well be an obstacle to many uncertain lone parents with a disabled child truly benefiting from the child support system that the Government wish to see. There is little evidence that court maintenance awards offer any consistency or easy access for parents. There can be no guarantees that proper account will he taken of the child's extra costs associated with disability.

I seek an assurance that the child support officers will advise parents of the right to have the needs of their child assessed by a court. If that does not happen there is a risk that lone parents of disabled children will not receive an adequate income for care of their children. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the objectives of the Child Support Agency are met for families with a disabled child and to look closely at how the interface between the regulations and the decisions of courts on awards to disabled children actually operates in practice. I urge the Government to undertake responsibility for monitoring the relationship between the operation of the formula and court decisions on maintenance for disabled children.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Children's Society, which has expressed misgivings in regard to the present regulations. I should first like to point out that approximately 70 per cent. of lone parents depend on income support. Under the present requirements of the new legislation they will not gain in any way. For every £1 they receive in child maintenance support, they will lose £1 in the benefit entitlement under the new legislation. It is a form of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would comment on that point and perhaps he could also outline the regulations. They are somewhat complicated. It produces something of a difficulty because parents who are seeking to care for children need every assistance in handling the regulations and in obtaining the benefits that they deserve.

I move on to the matter so elegantly expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in regard to the difficulty a lone parent may face in not wanting to name the other parent and thereby suffering the possibility that the child support maintenance needed will be reduced. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, can advise me on that matter.

It is the view of the Children's Society that the regulations and guidance should contain the explicit welfare principle set out in the Children Act and the Child Support Act—that the good of the child should be foremost in all considerations—and they should determine the carrying out of the duties of the child support officers at all stages in the assessment and enforcement process. After all, the Government White Paper is entitled Children Come First. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give me some assurance on that matter when he sums up.

It has been said, and I am sure will be said again by other noble Lords, that the handling of the regulations will require the greatest possible sensitivity in the child support officers. We hope that they will receive special training. The Government said that they seek a better and more secure maintenance for children. That can only be achieved if the lone parent is given a safeguard that if she does not wish to name the true father, money will not be withdrawn from an already inadequate family budget. I seek the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on all those matters in regard to these otherwise improved regulations.

1.15 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, we are almost at the end of the process which started in your Lordships' House with the introduction of the Child Support Bill. Many of us, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Carter, stayed here day after clay into the far reaches of the night trying to improve a Bill which I disliked then and, as an Act, I dislike now. But for all our discussions and hours spent in Committee and on Report, we had little effect on government thinking. In my view the effect was little indeed. Even the notorious Clause 8, which penalised women who were in fear for themselves and their children—which your Lordships had the good sense to reject—was reimposed by another place.

As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be aware from my previous speeches in this House, I believe that these regulations, and indeed the Act, have nothing to do with child support; they have everything to do with saving the Treasury £400 million. That was the position I and other people expressed when the Bill was first introduced into the House and the same position applies today. The Act is no better than it was when it was first introduced. The White Paper which preceded the Child Support Bill was entitled Children Come First. That was indeed a misnomer. It should have been The Treasury comes First. There is no doubt that the Act is not concerned with children; the regulations are not concerned with children. It can be shown that it is concerned with saving Treasury money.

Seventy five per cent. of the recipients of maintenance live on social benefits. There is no benefit under the regulations or the Act for children. For every £1 of increased maintenance there will be a £1 reduction in benefit. So there is no benefit to children or mothers in any way from these regulations or the Act from which they flow. As has already been mentioned by my noble friend, and in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, what about the women who out of fear are not going to name the father? The noble Earl has done some calculations as to how adversely that will affect women and their families. It will amount to £8.49 per week for 26 weeks and half of that sum for a further 52 weeks. What hardship that means to poor people.

But let us look at the matter in another way. I too have done a calculation. I have totalled up the amount which a mother or a family will lose over that period. It amounts to £442. That is a fine of £442 being visited on the woman and child because out of fear or for some other good reason she refuses to name the father. What kind of government are they who impose such a fine on poor women and children? It is called the Child Support Act. How are the children going to be supported when the mother has to pay a fine of £442, even though it may be paid over a period of 18 months? Where are the benefits to the children out of that? Yet, as I have said, these regulations are called the child support regulations. That is a misnomer. The children will gain no support from them at all. Indeed, in most cases there will be no additional financial support and, as we have seen in some cases, there will be a substantial reduction in support. For many there will be a reduction in their quality of life as a result of the stresses and strains that the Child Support Act and these regulations will engender. There is the possibility that they will hinder or prevent reconciliation that might otherwise take place.

The Tory Party is always prating on about the family. But Tory Party family policy is a shambles and a disgrace. Virtually everything it has done, including the Act and these regulations, militates against family life and reconciliation. As I have said, these regulations are no exception. It is about time that this Government put the family first, lived up to their slogan and really did something for the family instead of doing things which split families and make things difficult for them.

Family credits and the situation if the absent parent fails to pay have already been mentioned. But surely under those circumstances, if the Government really believe that assistance should be given and they want to help single parent families, that is a matter which they should grasp and give assurances about today. If they really want to help the family that is one way in which they can do so; namely, by guaranteeing payment in cases where the maintenance is not paid. There is nothing in these regulations to put that right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, can give us some assurances that in due course that matter in particular will be put right.

This legislation has been rushed at every stage. Even at the last moment when there was plenty of time available the Government rushed the Bill through before the parliamentary Recess in 1991. There would have been plenty of time available properly to discuss everything afterwards. But the Government wanted to get the Child Support Agency on the stocks before 1993.

These regulations are very complicated. One might say that they are a bureaucrat's dream but a citizen's nightmare. How are ordinary people to understand their rights under the regulations? They will need an army of lawyers to advise them. Again in rushing things through the Government allowed the House of Commons only nine days in which to consider four sets of complicated regulations. Yet this morning we are supposed to agree them without amendment. The fact is that we cannot amend them.

I believe that the Act and these regulations will not only cause hardship but very much resentment. It may very well be that in the course of time the Government will find to their cost that what they have introduced by this Act and these regulations is another poll tax fiasco.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, like the noble Lord, I disliked this legislation from the beginning. My dislike has hardly been modified by the marginal improvement represented in these regulations. Also like the noble Lord, I would like to add my voice to the complaints about the way in which this legislation has been managed by the Government. Not only did the other place have only nine days in which to consider getting on for 100 pages of regulations, but at the time of its debate the Members of another place did not have the 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We at least have had the benefit of that helpful document in the three bare weeks which we have had to consider the regulations. As many noble Lords have said, in the earlier stages of the passing of the legislation we had only a very short time to consider the regulations which are the content of the Act. To be asked as we now are to consider them on the last day before the Recess makes a mockery of parliamentary criticism of legislation.

Further than that, I understand that there were 100 consultation papers submitted to the Government, none of which has been published. Anyone interested in finding out what the voluntary bodies working in this field had to say about the regulations has had, as I did, to scurry round to try to collect their submissions. The Government treated in exactly the same way the research on which in some measure their original White Paper was based; that is the work done at York University by Bradshaw and Millar. The Government declined to publish that work, although they had it, until after parliamentary discussion of the Bill was completed.

I believe that the House has been treated in a shabby manner as regards enabling it to discuss a very important measure. As regards what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the reduced benefit direction and the points made in different ways by others who contributed to the debate, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to what a very large number of people who have discussed these regulations both outside and in the other place see as a central issue. It centres upon a conflict of values.

There is, first, the value to which everyone who has taken part in discussions on this legislation assents fully—the value that fathers should contribute to the maintenance of their children to the full extent of their capabilities. There is no doubt about that. However, there is then a second value—that in a free society there must be some frontiers of freedom which nobody should be permitted to cross. Those include the absolute right of mothers to preserve the privacy of their sexual relationships in so far as such relationships do not involve unlawful practices. Here, however, we have legislation that permits—no, requires—state servants to investigate the nature of sexual relationships in circumstances to which, in my opinion, no civilised society should subject a mother.

Admittedly, the regulations have been modified to some degree in that it was said in another place and by the Minister in his opening remarks that the Government will accept the uncorroborated evidence of parents unless there are strong reasons not to do so. I hope that the Minister will tell us what such reasons would be and that he will give us some information about the manner of the training in this area that is to be provided for child support officers. I hope that he will also explain something that puzzles me—if this principle has now been accepted, could it not have been incorporated into the regulations themselves?

We can only hope that the Government will now act on the principle that the protection of the taxpayer ought not to be the overriding value of the Administration in this particular field of social policy. I hope that the Minister will be willing to confirm that. The intrusion of public policy considerations into the realm of private life which is represented by this legislation also seriously affects legal arrangements, as many lawyers have pointed out, including the Law Society, which stated that the principle of, the clean break is now and will in future be undermined by the provisions of this Act". This is neither the time nor the place to discuss financial settlements after divorce and similar considerations, but it underlines the point that, as I understand it, at no point when this legislation as a whole was being considered and discussed in this House was the judiciary consulted. In the working out of these regulations, we now face the possibility of a considerable conflict between principles laid down by the courts for dealing with the financial and property consequences of broken marriages and the administrative principles that will be developed by the Child Support Agency.

There is a further legal consideration. Despite many appeals during the passage of the legislation, the Government have refused a right of appeal to the courts on the decisions of the Child Support Agency. Any appeals will not go to the courts but to a tribunal. One characteristic of tribunals is that legal aid is not available. So here we have a situation in which officials can determine the situation of the adult members of broken homes. As many of your Lordships have already said, this is a most sensitive area which could have incalculable consequences for the future of the families involved, yet there is no appeal in the system which carries with it the assurance that the appellant can be legally represented in circumstances in which great complexities may very well be involved.

I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances about how the gap caused by the absence of legal aid will be dealt with in circumstances in which, as has been emphasised many times, those of our fellow citizens who are involved are among the very poorest members of the community and are therefore the most in need of assistance.

Finally, several of your Lordships have drawn attention to the draconian penal provisions in the legislation. I refer to the 20 per cent. reduction in entitlement. Looking at the matter in a much shorter historical perspective than that employed by my noble friend, what that boils down to in practice is the reintroduction of the punitive elements of the old poor law which we thought had disappeared in 1948. That, however, re-emerges in this legislation, and re-emerges against a background in which such penal provisions have historically' never worked (I am thinking only of the past 100 years) and have ultimately had to be got rid of as a result of protests against the uncivilised treatment of citizens by officials which such provisions necessarily involve.

That point also brings us back to one of the major recommendations of the Committee on One-Parent Families which reported in 1974. It drew attention to the fact that throughout the whole of the 19th century and up to 1948 the poor law had been a form of family law which applied to the very poor. It recommended the abolition of a legal system which provided a different series of family laws for different social classes. Under the judiciary, and under the very slow developments which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has frequently told the House are leading us to a family court, the penal provisions disappeared and the population as a whole became subject to a single law to regulate their family relationships.

This legislation is putting us right back by 50 years into a world which we thought had gone for ever. I very much hope that the Minister will ask the officials—indeed, instruct the officials—who are constituting the new agency to consider very carefully the implications of the administrative decisions that they will be taking.

I wish to make one last point. All discussion of this legislation has pointed to the way in which its treatment of second families and the treatment under the regulations of second families is in direct conflict with one of the central provisions of the admirable

Children Act. These regulations undoubtedly make—the voluntary bodies which deal with these families on the ground have all made this point—second families less eligible than first families.

It may be worth while for those who are to administer the new system just to reflect on a comment by the old National Assistance Board in 1953 on the central issue with which the regulations are concerned. The National Assistance Board wrote in its annual report for 1953: if the husband's earnings or other resources are not enough to maintain besides himself both his wife with her children, if any, and the paramour with her children, if any, the defect has got to be met at one point or other by assistance. The board are then faced with the delicate task of deciding whether the assistance is to be given to the wife or to the paramour. Respect for the marriage tie suggests that it is the legal wife who should be the prior charge on the husband's income, but important practical considerations, not least the avoidance of unnecessary expenditure of public moneys, lead inescapably to the other view. Extracting money from husbands to maintain wives from whom they are separated is at best an uncertain business. It is easier to enforce the maintenance of those with whom the man is living than of those from whom he is parted". I suspect that the new agency will learn that lesson very quickly.

Lord Henley

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, alleges that all this legislation and the regulations before the House today have been brought forward purely—as he put it—to save the Treasury some money. I remind the noble Lord of what I said at the beginning when I introduced the regulations. We do not see it as right that people should be able to avoid their responsibilities and heap them on to the taxpayer or the Treasury.

I remind the noble Lord of who pays for what he referred to as the Treasury. It is taxpayers themselves, many of whom have children. I remind the noble Lord just to bear in mind how much the individual taxpayer pays to support the social security system that we have in this country. On average every taxpayer—every national insurance contributor—is paying something of the order of £10 a day to support the social security system. Those taxpayers—those national insurance contributors—have children as well. It is not purely the interests of some nebulous Treasury; it is the interests of the taxpayer at large that must also be taken into account.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understand perfectly what he has said. The fact of the matter is that the Bill is called the Child Support Bill but it is not going to support children. The noble Lord has, by his opening remarks, confirmed everything that I and other noble Lords have said; that the Bill is about saving the Treasury money. He confirmed that.

Lord Henley

My Lords, obviously it saves money. It saves money for the taxpayer himself. The taxpayer has children. The Bill is also quite clearly designed for the support of children. It is designed to make sure that fathers—I should not use the words "fathers"—it is designed to ensure that absent parents meet their obligations to support their own children. That has to be in the interests of the children. It has to be in the interests of the children to teach them that their fathers or mothers have a responsibility to support them and for them to grow up in that belief.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Even if they have to starve?

1.45 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I do not accept that. I do not think that the noble Lord will make much progress by emotive interjections of that sort.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I ask my noble kinsman to think carefully about the concluding quotation used by my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I wonder whether this may perhaps save the Treasury after all.

Lord Henley

My Lords, my noble kinsman, again, again and again, comes forward to the House, as I do not think I need remind your Lordships, by suggesting that any expenditure of social security money that he proposes is always likely to reduce expenditure on social security. I do not accept it now and I have never accepted what my noble kinsman argues.

If we accept that where possible the parent with care is supported by the absent parent, it must be accepted that there has to be a sanction for those who refuse to co-operate unreasonably. Again, I stress the word "unreasonably", as I did in my opening remarks. Despite what has been said today by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others, I do not believe that that sanction at 20 per cent. for 26 weeks and 10 per cent. for a further 52 weeks is unreasonable. It is nothing new in the social security system. Such deductions are made, as noble Lords have reminded us, in the case of voluntary unemployment deduction and such deductions can also be made in the case of income support for those who refuse actively to seek work, in which case they have no entitlement whatsoever to income support and only entitlement to income support under various hardship provisions at a 40 per cent. reduction.

We believe that sufficient discretion is already available. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and possibly my noble kinsman Lord Russell said that there was no provision to reduce the benefit deduction. We believe that there is already sufficient discretion. There is the position of the child support officer who decides in the particular circumstances of the case whether pursuing maintenance would put the parent or any child living with her at risk of harm or undue distress. If those circumstances apply no reduction will be made. It is important to remember that reduction has occurred only because of the unreasonableness of the refusal to co-operate by the individual parent. I shall come back to those points later on.

I should like to touch on one or two points which have arisen during the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the concept of "clean break". I think that I must repeat what my noble and learned friend and others said as the Bill went through Parliament in the process of becoming what is now the Child Support Act. The clean break is simply not an issue here. There can be no clean break between parents and children. Clean break is a concept which has a great deal of validity; it is a very valuable concept. But it is something relevant to the position of parents without children, or parents whose children have long since grown up.

Again, in passing, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the recently published—in fact, published yesterday—Household Below-Average Income Statistics. This is not the time and place to discuss them. However, I should like to make one or two brief comments. I suspect that the noble Lord has not read the HBAI statistics. If he had, I do not think that he would have made the allegations about the poor getting poorer in the way that he did. Certainly, if he looks at the composition of the lowest decile, he will find that some rather extraordinary statistics emerge. For example, on average, expenditure by the lowest decile is greater than expenditure in the decile above it. Moreover, if he takes those within the lowest decile who have negative or zero incomes he will find that, on average—and this is rather difficult to understand—they spend more than the average. The statistics are not quite as simple as the noble Lord would have us believe. In fact, they show that, on average, for the entire population, incomes have increased by over 30 per cent. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I am most grateful. The Minister is quite right, I have obviously not had the chance to study the report in detail. As to the increase in the average income which is about 30 per cent., the noble Lord omitted to mention the increase in income of the top 10 per cent. It is a fact that the lowest decile has had a 6 per cent. reduction in real terms. I happen to have the chart here with me.

Lord Henley

My Lords, there are two ways of looking at the figures; that is, either before or after housing costs. Under one measure there is a reduction of 6 per cent., while under another there is an increase of 2 per cent. I was trying to say that, if you then look at the expenditure of that group you will find some rather odd figures emerging. It does not actually reflect their living standards if they are spending more than the average man, woman or child in the population. That was an aside, and one that is not particularly relevant to the subject that we are discussing today.

There has been some concern about the consultation and the number of different organisations that responded to it. I have to say that it is entirely a matter for the 100 or so organisations that replied as to whether they wish to make their replies public. It is a decision for them; it is not a decision for us. I have to repeat, as my honourable friend said in another place, that we have no intention of publishing those particular responses.

The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord McGregor, also made complaints about the timing of the regulations. They said that the process has been something of a rush job. However, I have to stress that the regulations were laid on 22nd June, so there has been ample time, especially for noble Lords in this House to consider their views before debate. That is not unreasonable. Of course, I understand that there were complaints in another place, but that is a matter for them. I understand that those in another place gave their assent to the regulations.

My noble kinsman made a very worrying allegation that staff are jumping the gun and that they are already forcing women to disclose the name of the absent parent before the regulations come into force in April 1993. We are aware of those suggestions. Indeed, the noble Earl stressed that representations had been made to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. I must stress that the guidance given to staff is clear: there is no requirement on women to disclose the name of the father before the regulations come into effect. I give the noble Earl an assurance that the provision will not come into force before April of next year. We shall certainly take steps to reinforce the guidance to staff. Moreover, if the noble Earl would like me to look into any individual cases of which he has genuine evidence, I shall certainly do so.

My noble kinsman also said that civil servants and the Department of Social Security simply cannot be expected always to understand why a parent will not wish to name the father. To some extent, I believe that that was one of the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who said that these were difficult matters into which we should be very wary of entering. Obviously we recognise that this is a very sensitive and delicate area for many people. Our aim, so far as possible, is to ensure that, where a parent has good reasons not to name, such reasons will be recognised and there will be no reduction of benefit. Parents will have ample opportunity to put their case forward. We shall ensure that the Child Support Agency staff are trained to recognise and deal sensitively and carefully with such cases. The parent with care will have an opportunity to explain her case when she is first contacted by the Child Support Agency. If needed, there will then be a cooling-off period in which she can make her case to an official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. After that, she can make further representations if her case is passed on to a child support officer. Representations can be made orally or in writing. The parent with care can be accompanied by a friend, a neighbour or by some representative of any particular welfare organisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the guidelines would be published. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said that that would be more properly included in the regulations. We do not accept that the guidance should be in the regulations. Obviously, the staff will be given the guidance and that guidance will stress that it is the interests of the children and the parent with care that are paramount. One must be aware of the dangers that, if any guidance were published, it would certainly have the possible effect of assisting absent parents to evade their responsibilities.

I move on now to rights of appeal. As noble Lords will remember, Section 46(7) of the Child Support Act gives the parent with care the right of appeal if a benefit deduction is made to a child support appeal tribunal against the issue of a reduced benefit direction. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked that we should go further and that this should be an appeal to the courts. Obviously, one can appeal from social security commissioners—and this is the same sort of animal—to the courts on a point of law. However, I must stress that it is an appeal to an independent tribunal. The child support appeal tribunals, just as with other social security appeal tribunals, are not composed of officials from my department. They are independent tribunals operated by legally qualified people and set up by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I see the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, wishes to intervene. I give way.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for giving way. My point was simply that the appeal as it stands under the regulations is to a body for which the appellant cannot obtain legal aid.

Lord Henley

My Lords, that is the case with a great many different appeal tribunals—whether they be employment appeal tribunals or social security appeal tribunals. It is really a much wider question as to whether one should extend legal aid, and all the inherent cost, to the tribunals. The original purpose of setting up tribunals was to create some more informal forum whereby matters could he resolved. The necessity for legally qualified representation was, therefore, much less. But, as I said, obviously there is appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal where no doubt legal aid would be possible.

My noble kinsman asked about the reduced benefit direction applying to standard deductions from income support. The parent with care's income support may be reduced under a reduced benefit direction if that parent has unreasonably refused to co-operate. At the same time, it might be possible that standard deductions are being made for such items as fuel and housing costs. The overall ceiling of 15 per cent. will continue to be based on the full rate of income support for the over-25 personal allowance. It needs to be borne in mind that those standard deductions, after paying off debts to third parties, are made to safeguard the interests of income support beneficiaries.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about shared care. He will be aware that the normal maintenance is designed to cater for the most common cases where the child lives with one parent and the absent parent does not live with the child. We recognise that there will be other circumstances. They are provided for in the special cases part of the regulations which modify the application of the formula in such cases. We are aware that there is a feeling that where a child spends a significant amount of time with the absent parent, some recognition of that should be made in the absent parent's maintenance liability. We considered carefully where the balance should be struck. In the end, we concluded that it would be reasonable for the absent parent's liability to be adjusted if, averaged over the year, he provides overnight care for at least two nights per week. Such a level of care would mean that the absent parent would be likely to incur more significant financial commitments—for example, for accommodation—and that is therefore the right level at which to start making a formal recognition of the substantial share of the responsibility.

Lord Carter

My Lords, two nights a week over a year amounts to 104 nights. The absent parent would have to have the child for one-third of the year before there would be any change. Is that right?

Lord Henley

My Lords, yes, as I said, two nights a week averaged over the year. One has to draw the line somewhere. Difficult decisions have to be made. On balance, we believed that that was about the right level at which to make changes.

The noble Lord was also worried that some parents might be worse off with child support if floated off income support. The noble Lord will be aware that the general rule is that anyone who loses income support, for whatever reason, loses the automatic entitlement to free school meals and help with NHS charges. It would be wrong to make an exception for cases where a person lost entitlement merely because they began to receive maintenance or increased maintenance. They obviously still have a chance of obtaining some help with NHS prescriptions and the various schemes it operates on the grounds of low income. However, I accept that that is not true for some of the other passported benefits; for example, the free school meals that the noble Lord mentioned.

We believe that most parents who come off income support because of maintenance will be better off. That will be due to the payment of the maintenance itself. It should be more regular and reliable, and, what is important, it will be at a higher level than at present. In addition, for those parents claiming in-work benefits, such as family credit, there is a £15 maintenance disregard which will be of considerable help. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Stoddart, also suggested that second families might be made poorer. We have made clear our belief that parents should pay maintenance when they can afford to do so. It is also important to ensure that the absent parent retains an incentive to work to increase his or her income. We have therefore built in a special provision to ensure that an absent parent will always be left with more money than he or she would have were he or she on income support. That is what is called the protected income. Its purpose is to protect the position of the absent parent.

That brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made—whether the new partner's income will be taken into account for child maintenance. It will not be used in the assessment of maintenance itself, but the partner's income can be relevant to the protected income which, as I have stressed, is designed to ensure that income will be kept above income support levels.

My noble kinsman also asked why the disability working allowance was to be included. We feel—my noble and learned friend made this clear at earlier stages when this matter was discussed—that disabled parents have the same responsibilities to maintain their children as any other parents, and should be expected so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was worried about the additional costs of disability in the formula. As was said during the Bill's passage, we looked at that issue carefully. Officials from my department met representatives of many of the disability organisations to discuss those issues. We came to the conclusion that because the costs of disability vary enormously, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet all disability needs within the formula. The best way to ensure that maintenance takes account of disability is to obtain a discretionary additional award through the courts which will be able to look at the circumstances of each case. That is provided for in the Act. I give the noble Lord the assurance that that is a matter that will be monitored closely by my department.

Child support will be withdrawn pound-for-pound from income support and the right reverend Prelate asked us to look at some alternative. The only alternative would be a maintenance disregard. We do not believe that a maintenance disregard in income support is necessarily in the best interests of lone parents and their children. Most lone parents want to provide a better standard of living for their children by going to work now, or at some time in the future. Therefore, the recent introduction of a £15 maintenance disregard in family credit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance and the reduction in hours on family credit will make it easier for them to do just that. When they are ready to go to work it will enable them to choose hours which fit conveniently with their care responsibilities. They will be able to receive maintenance in addition to their earnings.

Disregard of maintenance in income support will do nothing to help those parents realise their ambitions for themselves. It will do the opposite. It would put a barrier in their way, and parents would have to earn more to be as well off in work as on income support. The payment of maintenance, as I have argued, is of benefit to children and to those providing care, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said.

These regulations are the next step towards the introduction of a new scheme which will provide a fair and consistent method of assessing an absent parent's liability for maintenance and putting in place the procedures which will allow the system to work. They also contain provision for ensuring that parents with care cannot simply pass responsibility for their children's maintenance on to the taxpayer without good reason for doing so, and they put in place a wide range of safeguards to protect the position of parents with care who will suffer harm or undue distress if an obligation to co-operate with the Child Support Agency is pursued. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.