HL Deb 19 June 1995 vol 565 cc16-9

3.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES in the Chair.]

[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]

Clause 1 [Applications for departure directions]:

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 22, at end insert:

("(2A) Once an application for departure is made under subsection (2), the other party shall receive notification of that application and can on request be allowed to submit further information or evidence which is relevant to that application.

(2B) The other party can request permission to submit further evidence under subsection (2A) either—

  1. (a) in writing; or
  2. (b) at a hearing either with or without the other party present; or
  3. (c) at a hearing with the other party present.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both amendments relate to the departure directions which are a feature of the first nine clauses of the Bill.

Amendment No. 2, if accepted, would ensure that parents with care and absent parents are made aware of departure applications and the circumstances surrounding such applications. It would also give them the right to submit their own evidence and comments on the application before a decision is made.

The departure process outlined in the Bill allows the parent with care no opportunity to see or comment on the evidence being submitted by the absent parent who is applying for departure. Monitoring by the National Council for One Parent Families shows that there are cases where absent parents have their maintenance payments reduced following normal reviews of changes of circumstances. In that case the parents with care are not told why that has happened and are informed that the information they need is confidential. If they want to know why their maintenance has been reduced, they have to go to an appeal tribunal to find out. The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to ensure that that situation does not arise with the departure system, as we believe that it would lead to yet more applications for appeal and increased levels of frustration on both sides.

In addition, if the departure officer is to make a fair and equitable decision which takes into account the financial circumstances of both parties and the welfare of any children involved it is important that he involves the parent with care in the process.

I believe that in Committee in the other place the Government said that they did not want to notify the parent with care at too early a stage as the departure application might fail, and also that if the application succeeded the parent with care might not even be notified. That seems to us to be a weakness in the departure process, which could lead to the problems I described, which arise with change of circumstance reviews. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 2.

The effect of Amendment No. 3 would be to allow applications for departure from a current maintenance assessment at any point. We believe that frustration will be caused to applicants who are refused simply because of a time limit. That will not be seen as justice, particularly as the time given is only 28 days.

The amendment removes the time limit on the period during which a person can apply for a departure. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that all parties to an assessment will be satisfied that their circumstances have been' properly considered by the agency. We do not want them to feel that they have been unfairly denied the opportunity to use the departure process.

The way in which the agency operates, the timescale available, and the understanding of the information provided by the agency all have an effect upon the speed at which a person may be able to consider most carefully that information and determine for himself whether or not he should seek a departure.

Unless that process is dealt with sensitively and without undue restraint, we think that the people concerned are likely to feel worry and anger that they have been denied the opportunity to use the new procedures which are so clearly set out in the Bill.

Some problems would be caused by backdating changes in the assessment resulting in the later application for departure. The amendment deals with the issue by allowing the revised assessment only to be backdated where there is good cause for the delay. In other cases, any revision would apply only from the date of the application for a departure. Liability before that date would remain unchanged.

The ability to seek departure applies to parents with care as well as absent parents. Therefore, that change would not always advantage the absent parent. As it stands, Clause 1 does not include any time limit for applying for departure after a change of circumstances. Therefore, the Government's argument about uncertainty for the recipient applies equally in that case.

I believe that what we seek to achieve with the two amendments is clear. It is to deal with the nature of the departure process, to improve its quality in the provision of information, and to seek a degree of justice in the way in which time limits are applied. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

Amendment No. 2 draws attention to a real mischief. I had not intended to speak at this stage, but it is possible that we may save a little time at a later stage of the Bill. The difficulty is whether the amendment is the best way to tackle the mischief. I shall listen to the Minister with care and think further afterwards.

Clearly, when an absent parent succeeds in obtaining a departure, and pays less, there will be a constant problem that the parent with care will immediately find herself receiving less and therefore will suffer. On the other hand, there is a problem between ex-spouses about confidentiality. Relations between ex-spouses are not always quite as amicable as, in a perfect world, one would wish. There are circumstances in which people may object rather strongly to having their private affairs drawn to the attention of ex-spouses.

What is important is that the maintenance should continue to arrive in one form or another; and that if, because the maintenance from the absent parent is reduced there is a hiatus, it should be met smoothly and efficiently by the restoration of benefit. I hope that the Minister may tell us that he has something up his sleeve to help with the problem. In the process, it may save me moving a later amendment.

In this context, I should like the Minister to explain the effect of Clause 25 of the Bill. Am I right in believing that the clause helps to ameliorate the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, draws attention? That information could possibly be of assistance to the Committee. I appreciate that what is described as the process of osmosis by which information reaches Ministers in this House may take a certain amount of time. However, it may be time well spent because it may save us time in the course of the evening. That is something for which we may all be grateful later.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The two amendments have been taken together as they relate to the procedures for dealing with departure applications.

Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the amendment gives the other party to a departure application the right to make representations before the application is decided. It is most certainly our intention that that will happen. The regulation-making powers in paragraph (2) of the new Schedule 4A will be used to ensure that that is achieved. On receipt of a departure application, all of the information, subject to security and data protection requirements, will he passed to the other party. The other party will be advised of its right to make representations and those representations will be taken into account in arriving at a decision. That will normally be a paper-based exercise, but an interview will be offered where appropriate.

I should point out that the right of appeal against a departure order extends to both parties and that both parties are entitled to attend appeal tribunal hearings.

I hope that with that explanation, and my assurance about our firm intention to introduce the measures outlined in the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 3 would add (I believe that that is the best way to put it in shorthand) to the outside limit of 28 days that a person would have before making an appeal. The amendment raises some interesting issues. I have read it carefully and have listened to what the noble Lord said. I should like to consider the matter further. I am sorry to say that since it appeared in the Marshalled List we have not had sufficient time to consider the matter carefully before today's Committee stage. Although Members of the Committee will understand that I cannot make any commitment about the result of my deliberations, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall consider further the point that he makes.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that osmosis is a little slow today. Therefore, I am afraid that we shall have to return to the issue at a slightly different stage. In my defence, perhaps I may point out that Clause 25 is for tomorrow's business, and sufficient unto the day—or words to that effect.

Lord Carter

It is an encouraging start. We have had a most helpful answer to the first amendment and a promise to consider the second.

Perhaps I misheard the Minister when he referred to Schedule 4A. However, there are only three schedules to the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am happy to help. I admit that the same confusion occurred to me earlier this morning. Schedule 4A is to be inserted in the 1991 Act. It is in Schedule 1 of the Bill.

Lord Carter

I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.