HL Deb 08 June 1999 vol 601 cc1354-6

(" . Regulations made by the Board under section 2(1)(c) shall provide that where a couple is entitled to a tax credit, in the case of a dispute between the parties, the credit shall be paid to the mother.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1 beg to move Amendment No. 5. We shall not move Amendment No. 6, although the House has chosen not to place a duty on the Government to write on to the face of the Bill that the mother alone, if she fears domestic violence, should received the tax credits. However, it i s important that there is protection for the mother when there is a dispute between the couple. There should he an assumption that the tax credit is paid to the mother. Academic research has found that money paid directly to the mother is more likely to meet family needs, while men tend to use some of that income as spending money.

We recognise that that was what the Minister intended when she spoke to Amendment No. 6 on Report. However, in the case of a dispute between the parties, we would like to see special protection on the face of the Bill for this vulnerable group. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I understand that there are seriously good intentions behind this amendment. However, I have some problems with the drafting. We have been arguing, and I understand that it is the Government's position, that where there is a dispute between two parents, the working families' tax credit should be paid to the carer. That is a rather different way of distinguishing between two parents from the way used in the amendment. I am perfectly happy with distinguishing between two parents in terms of what they do, but distinguishing between them in terms of their gender causes me problems.

We are subject to the European Convention on Human Rights in our domestic law as well as in our more general legal relations. To distinguish simply in terms of gender will cause us problems. Inevitably, we shall see more cases where the care of the child does not rest with the woman. Already 9 per cent of single parents are male and they are too easily forgotten, but they are entitled to exactly the same rights.

A situation that insists that the woman should receive the tax credit, even if she does not have the care of the child, is unfortunate in practice and unequal in its effect. Will the Minister take advice on whether that will be convention compatible? I would be interested to know the result of that advice.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. However, I understand the points raised by the noble Earl. Lord Russell. As there is no time to redraft anything in this House, perhaps the Minister should accept the amendment today, allow her officials to look at it and leave it for the other place to improve it or to throw it out. I suggest that they improve it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, surprised me. I return to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There is clearly a problem in defining someone not by what they do but by their gender role. Time and again, we have said that, with three-quarters of married women now working, we should not automatically assume that the father is the primary earner and the mother is the primary carer. That may be the case, but increasingly there are all sorts of other arrangements. Fragmented families may reform themselves so that the mother in the family, who is the primary carer, is not necessarily the biological mother of the children. That produces complications for such amendments.

I accept, as I believe the House will—I think the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also accepted this—that the points made by the noble Earl are entirely valid. There is another reason. I am happy to reiterate the commitment that the forms will be amended to reflect the disputes procedure. Following the queries from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the disputes will be explicitly covered on the face of the regulations.

The Government entirely accept the substance of what the noble Lord is asking for, as amended by the framework of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The amendment has all sorts of flaws, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others. The Government have already given a commitment as to the substance of what the amendment is trying to achieve.

Earl Russell

My Lords. I thank the Minister warmly, on behalf of my noble friend, for what she has said.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We have debated this point at great length during the passage of the Bill. I have no regrets about that, as I feel it is an important issue. It is a matter that concerns many professional organisations. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Our concern was to protect the mother, and we used that word carefully, as opposed to the word "carer".

On Amendment No. 3, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used the words "cautious welcome". I give what the Minister has just said a cautious welcome. Although her points do not meet all our concerns and those of the professional organisations advising us, I accept that she has gone some way to doing so. I understand the arguments that the noble Baroness has made. We do not want to push this matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7. After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—