Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour)

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Clause 11, page 5, line 36, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 1. They are both minor and technical and make clear the implementation process by which we will commence certain provisions.

Clause 11 provides that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission be established as a non-departmental public body with Crown status. Noble Lords will remember that this status will be reviewed after three years. The amendment clarifies that should the commission cease to be a Crown body following this review, the order will be made by statutory instrument.

Clause 62 provides commencement dates for certain provisions within the Bill. Subsections (1) and (2) provide specific dates for when a few certain provisions will come into force. Subsection (3) provides that provisions not covered in subsections (1) and (2) shall come into force as and when the Secretary of State makes an order by statutory instrument. Amendment No. 4 inserts a further subsection to clarify that such an order may include transitional provision or savings. This is a standard provision and will streamline the staging of individual provisions being commenced. For example, when Section 6 repeal is commenced, it is necessary to include in the commencement order provision for existing cases to be continued as if they had been private applications. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, we on this side of the House have no objection to these two sensible amendments. However, I would like to pick the Minister up on one tiny point. I understood him to say that when CMEC ceases to exist, then the order will be passed. I am sure he meant to say that when the Government decide that the organisation ceases to exist, then the order will be laid.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, perhaps I may explain what I said. The amendment clarifies that should the commission cease to be a Crown body following the review by the Government, the order will be made by statutory instrument. I hope that has clarified the matter.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, the review does not cause the Crown body to cease. What causes it, surely, is the Secretary of State's intention.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, that is right, of course, but it follows the consequences and the review.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I also understand the reason for the two government amendments, but if the review finds that a change is required, will the statutory instrument proposed in this group of amendments be made by the affirmative, as opposed to the negative, procedure? It is not clear to me, as the amendments are worded, which way around it is. I hope the Minister can reassure us that, in the eventuality, it will be done by the affirmative and not the negative procedure.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that it will be by an affirmative process. That is right, given the nature of the decision.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)

moved Amendment No. 2:

Clause 18, page 16, line 30, at end insert—

"(A1) On expulsion or exclusion from membership of a trade union on grounds of membership of a political party, a proper balance shall be struck on the facts and circumstances of the case as between the entitlement under the European Convention of Human Rights of the trade union of freedom of association and of the individual's entitlement to seek or retain membership of the union; due account having been taken of any consequential adverse effect of employment.

(A2) Subsection (A1) may be implemented by Order in Council made by the Secretary of State as guidance having legal efficacy subject to affirmation by each House of Parliament."

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)

I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3 in my name and the important additional and wider amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. This issue is carried over from Report. It is an important attempt at the last minute, under the procedures of this House, to take account of what I believe are the special circumstances of Scottish civil procedure.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are much narrower than Amendment No. 19. They relate to Clause 35, which deals exclusively with registered agreements in Scotland. Minutes of agreement registered in the Books of Council and Session are enforceable ab initio in a way that puts them in a separate category; indeed, law relating to the Child Support Agency has, in many of its facets, been distinct and separate north of the border. Therefore there are circumstances where we should look carefully at Amendment No. 2.

The amendments would leave minutes of agreement registered in the Books of Council and Session outside the CMEC remit for four years across the jurisdiction of Scotland. That would take a very small number of often complicated cases out of the new commission's hands. If the Government cannot see their way clear to going so far as that, I wish to make a plea. Although Clause 41 provides an opportunity for pilot schemes, they would be restricted to a two-year period, and I do not know that that would give anyone a chance of working out whether the provision was helpful. Still, my suggestion is potentially a pilot scheme type if the Government are not prepared to go for the full four-year period proposed in Amendment No. 2.

I understand that the Minister was as good as his word and kindly agreed at the last minute to meet some of the specialists from the Law Society of Scotland. Alas, the follow-up meetings have not been able to take place in the recess in advance of Royal Assent being given to the statute, but he could help the House by explaining how those discussions went. The least that he might consider doing, if he does not accept the amendments, is to talk seriously to the commission about the prospects of what might be a pilot or might not, and to continue to explore the possibilities that are available north of the border, having regard to the special civil procedural differences that apply there, to see whether there is some way of accommodating some of the concerns that are at the forefront of the minds of some of the key practitioners in Scotland. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, far be it from me to get involved with the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, based on his extensive background in legal practice in Scotland on the subject of child maintenance. I therefore wish to degroup my Amendment No. 19 from the Scottish provisions, because it covers an entirely different point and is relevant purely to England and Wales rather than to Scotland.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for the amendment, which, as he explained, seeks to extend the current period of 12 months during which parents with minutes of agreement registered in the Books of Council and Session or the sheriff court books may not apply to the commission for a maintenance calculation. The amendment would prevent those parents applying for a period of four years.

The merits of minutes of agreement as a means of settling child maintenance have been rightly discussed at some length during the passage of the Bill. As the noble Lord indicated, I have also recently discussed the matter in some detail with the Law Society of Scotland. I recognise the value of this uniquely Scottish instrument; indeed, we have amended the Bill at an earlier stage to clarify its role in the child maintenance system north of the border.

As we discussed in Committee and on Report, the 12-month rule has two main purposes: first, if agreement between parents breaks down, it provides a swift and readily available route into the statutory maintenance system so that children are not left for considerable periods with either no maintenance or inadequate arrangements. Secondly, it encourages the concluding of agreements that contain levels of child maintenance broadly consistent with the amount calculated under the statutory scheme.

I recognise the very special nature of minutes of agreement and the important differences between the Scottish legal system and that in England and Wales. As I mentioned earlier, I met the Law Society of Scotland to discuss this, and my officials will continue the dialogue.

However, while we recognise that registered minutes of agreement have many advantages, our view remains that if circumstances change and the original agreement needs adjustment, difficulties may arise, and children may be stranded with inadequate arrangements that no longer work. There are particular problems with varying registered minutes of agreement where, for example, the parents have not been married before separation.

I make it clear that the commission does not wish to intervene to disturb maintenance arrangements that are working well. Parents must decide whether their children's interests are best served by the provisions of a registered minute of agreement or by a maintenance calculation made by the commission or by some other route. We do not wish to restrict any effective and agreed maintenance arrangements, in whatever form, to a year, four years or any other period. The Government's view remains that the 12-month rule is the right policy to ensure a regular flow of income for the child where the parents have separated. A 12-month period strikes the balance between giving alternatives to statutory maintenance arrangements a chance to bed in and work, and providing a means to resolve difficulties quickly and keep payments flowing.

That may disappoint the noble Lord. While I cannot offer the prospect of a pilot, I can certainly offer that of continuing engagement with the Law Society of Scotland. On that basis, I hope that the he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the trouble that he took in considering again this important question. It will continue to be an issue, and I hope that he will keep it under careful review, but on the basis of what he said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 4:

Clause 62, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

"( ) An order under subsection (3) may include such transitional provision or savings as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with bringing any provision of this Act into force."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Changes to the calculation of maintenance]:

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

moved Amendment No. 5:

Schedule 4, page 71, line 41, after first "is," insert "has been,"

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, this may be thought to be a curious piece of drafting, but it provides a hook on which I can develop an argument. Since Report, I have been made aware of a very disturbing incident which does not appear to be covered by the current wording of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4. The non-resident father of a young child wrote to me to explain that, between September 2006 and June 2007, he had had continuous weekly contact with his child. During that period, there was in place a very amicable private maintenance arrangement whereby he paid his former partner £50 a week. In June 2007, the mother of his child, who was the main carer, was advised by the CSA that such level of contact should entail the non-resident parent paying only £35 a week. She reacted forcibly by limiting the father's contact with his son so that she could continue to receive the £50 a week. The three people involved—the father, the mother and, most importantly, the child—are all losers in this case.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, we need just one more piece of information. Is the parent with care to whom the noble Lord refers on benefit? His opening remarks seemed to suggest that she was not, in which case the arrangements could go undisturbed, but he then referred to the CSA, which suggested that she was. Could he give us a little more information?

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I am only relating the facts as presented to me in the letter. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness's question. But the point is, surely, that even if the mother—or, indeed, the father—was on benefit, the amicable arrangement could or should have continued.

As I was saying, the three people involved—the father, the mother and, most importantly, the child—are all losers in this case, all due to the intervention of the CSA. I tabled the amendment to discover whether the reworded schedule or the Bill as a whole would prevent such a case recurring. If I have understood the addition to Schedule 4 correctly, adding the words "has been" would mean that if a shared care arrangement was operating in the best interests of both estranged parents and the child, CMEC would not be able to disturb it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am right. I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, the import of which I understand a little better having heard him speak to it. The amendment would mean that when there had been shared care of 52 or more nights in the preceding 12-month period, the amount of child maintenance would be reduced. This amendment, which would apply to basic or reduced-rate cases, mirrors existing arrangements to the extent that currently, in most cases, the Child Support Agency will look at care arrangements over the previous 52 weeks. However, there is a significant difference between those provisions and this amendment.

We believe it is right that, at the time of setting maintenance liability for the next year, a reduction should apply only if the parents intend to continue shared care. The effect of this amendment could be to allow such a reduction to apply even though shared care had already ceased by the time the maintenance calculation was made. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord sought through this amendment, but that would be its import. We believe that substantial shared care should be reflected in maintenance calculations. This is, admittedly, a difficult area, which we have debated in Committee and on Report, but there is no clear consensus on what the shared care rules should be. That is why we have left those rules largely unchanged. The impact of shared care on liabilities has the potential to add to disputes between parents, although we would hope that they would always put the benefits to the child before any financial consideration.

Shared care can also have administrative complexities. The amendments to the Bill are designed to assist with this. For example, paragraph 6 of Schedule 4, to which this amendment is addressed, would allow the commission to base a shared-care reduction on any future agreement between the parents to share care, such as under a contact order. This would be broader than the current arrangement, whereby the Child Support Agency can reach a decision based only on past evidence of shared care, which can sometimes be of poor quality or disputed.

I think that the thrust of the point that the noble Lord made was that the existence of a change in the maintenance level occasioned by a formula for shared care can, in some circumstances, discourage contact. One would accept that there might well be circumstances in which that could arise but, equally, there could be circumstances in which the lack of any financial adjustments made it difficult for the non-resident parent to participate in contact arrangements and shared care. The Bill fundamentally encourages voluntary arrangements where appropriate. It is for parents to determine the level of child maintenance, but negotiated in the shadow of what the commission would provide and the consequences of any shared care arrangement.

My noble friend raised the point that if the parent with care is on benefit that would drive the commission's formula. That of course would eventually fall away because being on benefit would not require the use of the commission in the future. I do not believe, and I do not think that we have evidence to suggest, that the shared care formula in any significant way negates contact of both parents. Certainly that is something that we would discourage. We have always made it clear that we want to uncouple fundamentally payment of maintenance for children from contact, while recognising that shared care arrangements have cost implications for the non-resident parent.

The current formula for shared care, which we broadly propose to carry forward because of lack of consensus, as I have said, will continue. That obviously would not apply if people move into voluntary arrangements. At the end of the day we want sustainable arrangements with which we hope both parents are happy. We believe that is best to make sure that maintenance continues to flow for the benefit of children, and, indeed, that is the best environment for young children to be able to have contact with both parents.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, of course that is what we all hope for. I was rather slow on the uptake in answer to the interruption of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about whether the mother was on benefit. The Bill changes that situation. I am interested in the future rather than the past. I said at the end of my opening remarks that I hoped that such a situation will not recur through the actions of the CSA.

So far as concerns the Minister, I regret that we do not have 30 readings of a Bill rather than three. Over time he has moved his position, I note, just slightly on all this. He has now admitted—I am sure that I correctly took down his words—that shared care arrangements "could" discourage contact. Clearly, I cannot push him any further than he is prepared to go, but—

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, of course one would be foolish not to recognise that there may well be circumstances in extremis where the financial adjustment that shared care would produce could discourage shared care, but we do not believe that that is the generality. As I said, I believe that there is an opposite effect, where some recognition of the costs involved in shared care will be reflected in the commission's formula. I was simply in a sense stating the obvious that there could certainly be extreme cases where contact is affected by these adjustments. Essentially it depends on arrangements under which contact is settled. Obviously, if it is settled by the court that is one thing and if it is settled by voluntary arrangements that is something else.

I come back to the point. We believe that a central point of the Bill is to encourage voluntary arrangements where appropriate. We believe that that is the environment where shared care can best flourish.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, stating the obvious yes, but this is the first time it has been stated during the proceedings on the Bill. I have been pushing away on all this for a considerable number of months now, aided and abetted sometimes by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. It is quite clear that this subject will not go away over the next few years. On that basis, knowing that some thought is going on in the department on this subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

moved Amendment No. 6:

Schedule 5, page 73, line 8, leave out "The Secretary of State may" and insert "Within one year of the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State shall"

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, we now come to the lamentable subject of transfers: moving people from one scheme to another. It is quite simply a disgrace that thousands of parents with care are still receiving money from the original 1991 scheme, even though that was changed by the 2000 Act. New applicants were of course put on to that second scheme and, under the Bill, new applicants will, again, be put on to this third scheme as set out in Schedule 4. In Committee, I made the point that there will therefore be parents with care receiving maintenance money from non-resident parents from one or other of these schemes. In other words, CMEC will be running all three schemes concurrently. That is bad from the points of view of both the commission and the parents themselves.

Although the Minister told us in Committee that transfers to the second scheme are now ongoing, it has been a ridiculously slow process. I therefore tabled the amendment to remove the Secretary of State's discretion as to when he moves people from one scheme to another. For reasons we all know, not least the computer fiasco, he has been extremely lethargic in this respect. Today, however, there is no excuse for such lethargy. It should be entirely possible for the Secretary of State to lay the order to move parents from the two old schemes to the current one within one year rather than, as now, to do it at his—or, rather, CMEC's—convenience. I would at least expect the Minister to give us the timetable that the Government intend to follow, so that parents can at last get some clarity as to what to expect and when. I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's amendment and his interest in the movement of cases to the new arrangements. It is an important subject which we have discussed before. We know from experience that this will be one of the most significant challenges for the commission. In the light of this, any decisions regarding the process should be carefully considered.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the transfer of cases within one year of the Act coming into force. I acknowledge the intent behind this, but primary legislation is not the right place to make such provision. Perhaps it would be helpful if I outlined some of the relevant factors that are likely to have a bearing on the commission's recommendations to Ministers on the detail and timing of the transfer arrangements.

Over the next few months, the commission's board will be effecting a number of changes that will allow it to formulate its approach. By the end of this year we will have repealed Section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991; the information and support service will be dealing with customers and their inquiries across the country; and the disregard will have been doubled to £20 a week and will have been extended to all cases in the statutory scheme. The commission will therefore need to study all of this closely and evaluate the effect on its customers, including the effect of its own communications strategy and that of Jobcentre Plus. All of this will inform its decision-making process for formulating recommendations for the next stages in implementing our reforms.

Furthermore, we anticipate that the commission will consult stakeholder groups in developing processes for the movement of cases and will ensure that parents are supported by a comprehensive communication strategy in order for them to make the decision that is best for them. It would follow automatically—and if it does not, I am happy to make a commitment that it will—that consultation with stakeholder groups would obviously involve engagement with the Opposition Benches as this thinking unfolds. Your Lordships will be aware that it was agreed on Report that considerations for the movement will be subject to affirmative regulations in the first instance, where the proper ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny can take place.

A lesson from the previous reforms of the child maintenance system is that this preparation is absolutely essential if we are to succeed. I do not believe it to be in the best interest of parents, children and taxpayers to limit the drawing up of this process to a period defined in advance by statute. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

The noble Lord referred to transfers between the current system and the new system. I stress that there is no wholesale transfer. We have always maintained that we will not make transfers to the current system—not the new system—until the systems are properly in place to effect that. Of course, there are transfers in some cases, for example where there are new children or new relationships, but there is no wholesale transfer.

I reiterate that the transition process—the transfer—was considered in the White Paper, is due to start in 2010-11 and will be introduced over a three-year period. That is still the timeframe which is envisaged but it is for the commission to work up the detail of that process.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important that the House sets standards by which the commission should consider introducing the transition. A point that has continued to concern the Opposition during the Bill's passage is the way in which the computer software and hardware seem to be always slipping inexorably further into the future. We are constantly told that these software upgrades are fundamental to producing the business information, productivity and savings around the whole operational improvement plan, which itself will not mature until March next year. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right to say that all this introduces uncertainty about the situation, even if it were not for the Child Support Agency's history with regard to software and hardware issues.

I am very sceptical about whether the software programmes are up to speed but the commission has no alternative but to stick with the programme provided by EDS. I am not at all confident that all these problems will be solved by 2010-13 with regard to the specifications established 10 years ago when this programme was put in place. Even at this late stage in the Bill—although this has been discussed previously—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely right to seek assurances on this point. Before it hands over responsibility for these issues the department should establish in its framework agreement with the commission an outline timetable in ministerial minds about what is reasonable; otherwise, the whole thing could slip. We have seen the hopes and expectations of clients who depend on these systems dashed. Therefore, it is incumbent on us all in this third iteration of this legislation to get an outline timetable that instils confidence that it will deliver the goods this time round.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying and recognise his ongoing concerns about the IT systems. I agree that it is important that those systems are right. The commission will inevitably inherit the current systems as improved by PR1. The fact that we resist being specific on the process and detail of the transition within a year of the passing of this Act does not mean that there will be an absence of reporting in the interim. The noble Lord will be aware that Clause 9 requires an annual report to be made by the commission to the Secretary of State. There will be a lot of detail in that. As the noble Lord recognises, the framework agreement which will govern the NDPB will contain targets and the need to report progress in all these areas, so there will not be a vacuum in which the commission will be left to its own devices without a reporting process. However, we resist reporting on the specifics of this process within a year because it is complicated and it is hugely important that we get it right.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

Well, my Lords, I suppose that I got something out of the Minister's reply, but I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for supporting me on this. The something that I got was that Ministers had not thought beyond the White Paper, which is more than a little surprising given that it is 18 months old.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I cannot allow that to stand. I referred to the White Paper which set down the three-year timetable. Of course a lot of detailed thinking and planning has run on from that and continues on a daily basis, but that does not mean that we want to adhere to the one-year recommendation that the noble Lord is pressing.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I am not pressing a one-year recommendation. I explained in my opening remarks exactly the reason for my tabling the amendment—that I wanted a timetable. The Minister has reaffirmed the timetable in the White Paper. He also said that in the first few months CMEC would get its act together and start to get cracking, that Section 6 would disappear by the end of the year and that consultation with stakeholders would happen—I assume that he meant during the year, but perhaps not—on moving from one scheme to the current scheme. Is that right?

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

Yes, my Lords. Stakeholders will be engaged on a range of matters, of which transition will certainly be one, as will the communications strategy that needs to go alongside that process. That will not necessarily be completed this year but will be ongoing, as it has been in the construction of the White Paper, the legislation and everything that has flowed from it.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, the guts of the answer that the Minister has given to estranged parents with children with whom CMEC becomes involved is that it may well not be until 2013 or 2014 that nobody will be on either of the two old schemes. That will disappoint an enormous number of parents in that most unfortunate position. Regretfully, I cannot pursue the point. I am well aware that my one-year timeframe was totally unachievable, but it served a purpose—to extract this dismal information from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

moved Amendment No. 7:

Schedule 6, page 74, line 39, leave out "paragraph" and insert "Schedule"

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 8 to 18. I drafted this raft of amendments because, on my reconsideration of Schedule 6, I found it more than a little confusing. As the part of the Bill that defines the powers of the new body—CMEC—to use information, it is important that there be clarity. By substituting every reference to "paragraph" with the words on the Marshalled List—I changed them at the last minute to "Schedule"—I seek to ensure that the work of CMEC is tied into a relationship with the work of HMRC. Without that relationship, the whole operation falls apart.

I drafted the amendments in response to information recently received from a Question asked by my honourable friend Andrew Selous in another place. He inquired,

"what access HM Revenue and Customs staff seconded to the Child Support Agency have to HM Revenue and Customs data systems while on secondment".—[Hansard, Commons, 16/5/08; cols. 1849W-50W.]

The answer was disappointing—it was "none".

If information is not provided regularly and promptly by HMRC, the whole child support scheme is blown out of the water. One of the old CSA's problems that must not be repeated was the time that it took to sort out cases. A way to prevent delays in calculating child maintenance would be, of course, through data sharing. As the Treasury already has the information regarding the non-resident parent's income, is it not a waste of time and valuable resources for CMEC, or whatever child maintenance agency it happens to be, to duplicate this work by arduously investigating the non-resident parent? Sharing of information between the two bodies would have another fortuitous effect of preventing any parent from purposely concealing income to engender low maintenance payments, because CMEC could check its figures against those held by the Treasury.

It is important, as I hope noble Lords will agree, that the Minister should give assurances that, should there be difficulty in the provision of information, this joined-up government, as is so often claimed, will not be as dysfunctional as I suspect that it is at the moment. We already know that it is not unusual for employees of HMRC to be seconded to the CSA or any of the regional enforcement teams. I assume that this is done for one of two purposes. The first is to advise on the working of the formula in Schedule 4 and the second is to correlate the actual earnings of the non-resident parent shown by their PAYE returns, with their earnings as stated to CMEC. But thanks to my honourable friend's Question, we know that that is verboten to those seconded HMRC employees, although it would have been of real use to the commission. Why are they seconded if they cannot have access to their former colleagues in HMRC and to the tax files that they previously handled on a daily basis? This can only exacerbate the problems of the very slow speed with which the CSA has operated until now, which is one of the main reasons why it has developed such a bad name.

These secondees can scarcely be expected to have much, if any, knowledge of the intricacies of child maintenance. I cannot accept the Minister's anticipated response that they do not have to. Will they really have no direct contact with parents? That is difficult to believe. In the real world when a parent telephones with a query or complaint, will not the operator say, "Hold on a minute, I'll transfer you to the person dealing with your case"? We know that the parent's emotions can run high at this point. What training is given to the secondees? They will certainly need it in the scenario that I have described. All members of staff at CMEC need to be properly qualified to deal with the specifics of child maintenance.

To sum up, the purpose of the amendment is to ask, given the department's Answer to my honourable friend: what use is the secondment of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs staff to CMEC? I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I was rather bemused by the amendment and I confess to remaining somewhat in that state. As set down, the amendments in this group would replace nearly all references to "paragraph" within Schedule 6 with "Schedule". Each paragraph within Schedule 6 enables information held by the specific government department to be supplied to the commission for the purpose of functions relating to child support and enables the commission to supply information that it holds in relation to child support to be supplied to those government departments for the purpose of their specified functions. That is the purpose of the gateway. Changing the references from "paragraph" to "Schedule" takes away the limitations and makes all types of data referred to in the schedule available to all the parties mentioned within the schedule. That cannot possibly be right.

The importance of data security has previously been raised and it is crucial that the legislation for the sharing of data is watertight and not open to misinterpretation. We believe that the amendments would reduce the clarity of the schedule and would compromise the provisions in place for data security. I take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the security of data continues to be of paramount importance. We will ensure that security through a number of methods. Safeguards will be built in to ensure that inappropriate or excessive access to information is not available to commission staff and that data access is controlled. Any person found inappropriately to disclose information obtained by working for or on behalf of the commission will be committing a criminal offence. That will enforce data security, which will be achieved through the extension of Section 50 of the Child Support Act 1991.

It is absolutely fundamental to the new system that HMRC data are used. Basing the assessment on gross income data as provided by HMRC is one of the key planks of the reform because it will enable assessments to be made without reference, in most cases, to non-resident parents. That is part of the process that has caused the CSA to fail in large measure in the past. The purpose of the gateways is to enable that information to be provided.

I am not aware of the response that the noble Lord's colleague received. However, he asked me about secondees from HMRC to what is currently the CSA but in future will presumably be the commission. I am not familiar with the individual work plans of each office or the career plans for each individual but I can well see that having HMRC individuals available to the commission as part of the operation could be helpful. That would certainly be the case in the minority, and possibly 10 per cent, of cases where HMRC gross data will not be available—for example, in relation to the self-employed—and where having people with HMRC experience could be quite useful. I do not know whether that is how they are being deployed; perhaps I had better look more specifically at the information that the noble Lord has requested, which I do not have available at the moment. However, the fundamental point is that the gateways should be controlled to ensure that the commission gets the information that it needs. The HMRC link is critical to ensuring that future assessments are timely and accurate.

I hope that that has satisfied the noble Lord—at least, in part. I cannot readily tell him what each individual secondee from HMRC or anywhere else might be doing but I shall see whether I can find out and will write to him if that is of help.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. Of course, I did not in any way want these amendments to give licence to what the Minister called inappropriate access to information and its disclosure. Again, I was using this schedule as something of a hook on which to hang the situation that I described in moving the amendment.

I still believe that the use of secondees from HMRC could speed up the process quite dramatically as long as they were allowed access, first, to their former colleagues and, secondly but arguably not quite so importantly, to the files that they were working on when appropriate to the case with which they are dealing together with the CSA or CMEC. The parliamentary Answer given suggests that neither of those two things will happen if there is no contact. As I said, the Answer to the Question was "none".

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, as this is an important point. It is important that data channelled from one department to another for use in, in this case, child maintenance calculations is done through a formal, controlled process to ensure that the data are secure. I am not sure whether this was intended but I would be nervous if an individual seconded to the commission had a relationship with someone at HMRC and they could chat about a particular case on which they might have worked in the past. That would be a dangerous situation and, as I said, I am not sure whether it is what the noble Lord intended. We need to ensure that the gateways are secure and specific. I would need to check whether an HMRC secondee working in an appropriate area of the commission would be unable to access the data that came through that gateway. However, it has to be done on a formal basis; otherwise, we shall be in deep trouble.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I am all for it being done on a formal basis but, as I said, the Answer received by my honourable friend gave the impression—perhaps it was not intended—that there was no contact at all. In other words, the secondee could not request the information and had to go through someone else in CMEC or the CSA. That cannot be the right way of proceeding. I may have read more into the Answer than was intended, but it occurred to me that it would not be unreasonable to raise the point with the Minister so that he could look at whether the activity that I have described and am fearful of is going on. He very kindly nods, so I assume that he will investigate that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

moved Amendment No. 19:

Schedule 7, page 76, line 18, at end insert—

"(1A) In section 4(10)(aa) (child support maintenance), for "one year" substitute "three years"."

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, I make no apology for having ungrouped this amendment from the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope—Amendments Nos. 2 and 3—or for raising the same issue as, in various formats, I have attacked at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and on Report. My devotion to the issue shows how important I think it. I believe that the Minister is perhaps misguided not to share my belief. On Report, he said that he wished to make it clear,

"that the commission does not wish to intervene or disturb court orders that are working well. It is parents themselves who must decide whether or not their children's interests are best served by the provision of a consent order, or by a maintenance calculation made by the commission".—[Hansard, 13/5/08; col. 980.]

In 2006, there were 148,141 divorces in the United Kingdom and many of those separated partners will have children, so the 12-month rule potentially affects many people. Up to now, the Minister has persistently missed the point. He said when I moved a similar amendment on Report:

"We have always been clear about not linking contact with maintenance".—[Hansard, 13/5/08; col. 954.]

So has the whole of officialdom: the Government, the Official Opposition and the courts all agree with that. I venture to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—who will have the opportunity to correct me in a moment if I am maligning him—would also agree. The point that officialdom is missing is that parents with care do not agree. Also the Bill has an inbuilt encouragement to tie maintenance in with access.

It is too late in the parliamentary process to rewrite the Bill but I make one last-ditch attempt to get the Minister to change his mind and not to brush this pertinent correlation under the carpet as he has done before. In the interrogative mode in which I have moved all my amendments this afternoon, I use this amendment to ask the Minister whether he can produce any figures to show how many court cases have subsequently resulted in changes made by the CSA. If the CSA cannot produce such figures—I think that he said on Report or in Committee that it does not collect them—surely the Courts Service should be able to, as presumably a court settlement has to be broken once the CSA and, in the future, CMEC become involved. I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for moving the amendment, which seeks to extend the current period of 12 months during which parents with a court consent order for child maintenance may not apply to the commission for a maintenance calculation. The amendment would prevent such parents applying for a period of three years. As he indicated, we debated this issue in Committee and on Report.

I reiterate the Government's view on this matter. The purpose of the 12-month rule is twofold. First, when an agreement between parents breaks down, it provides a swift and readily available route into the statutory system so that children are not left for considerable periods with either no maintenance or inadequate arrangements. Secondly, it encourages agreements that contain levels of child maintenance broadly consistent with the amount calculated under the statutory scheme and encourages parents to consider appropriate ongoing maintenance for their children at the time that they divide up their property and assets. We do not want to restrict effective and agreed maintenance agreements to a year, three years or any other period, as I said earlier in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

Our hope is that parents with effective court orders will not need to turn to the commission for a calculation. Parents themselves must decide whether their children's interests are best served by the provisions of a consent order, by a maintenance calculation made by the commission or by some other route. On principle, we believe that options should remain open to parents, including the option of entering the statutory scheme if it is right for them.

On time periods, we consider that the 12-month period strikes the right balance between giving court orders a chance to bed in and providing a means to resolve difficulties quickly and keep payments flowing. A period of three years is too long to wait for a chance to access the statutory scheme. Parents and children should not be left for considerable periods locked into the court system, when maintenance may not be paid or maintenance arrangements for children may no longer be adequate or working. Parents should be able to resolve the issues, gain access to the statutory scheme, and get payments flowing quickly.

The noble Lord mentioned that there are 141,000 divorces each year. He will be aware that about 20,000 consent orders are entered into annually. He asserted that parents with care do not agree with our assessment. I am unclear about the evidence base for that assertion; I would like to hear it if he can demonstrate that. He asked for figures on the number of court cases where changes have been made by the CSA—I think that that was his question. If that is the matter on which we have already written to him, the response said that we do not have that information available. I am more than happy to go away to look at that again, but that does not change the Government's fundamental view. We believe that access by the parent to the statutory scheme should be available, because that is the best safeguard for children.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords—before my noble friend sits down—his position is absolutely right, but can he confirm what I understand to be the case, which is that under the proposed new system, the old arrangement would still apply? That is that if a parent, presumably normally a parent with care, seeks to go from a court order to the CSA, perhaps because of interrupted payments, she none the less has to give the non-resident parent a two-month notice period—a period of grace, so to speak—so that if there have been any misunderstandings, changes of address and so on that can be reconciled between them, there is that space to permit a reconciliation of information, and so that the court order can continue if that, on reflection, is what the non-resident parent is willing to agree to and respect.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I cannot specifically confirm that; the precise arrangements will be in part up to the commission, but it seems to me that arrangements such as that are entirely appropriate and help to get misunderstandings out of the way and differentiate them from situations that underline a parent's need to use the statutory agency.

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)

My Lords, the Minister said that the 12-month rule provides a balance between bedding down and the interests of the child and the parent with care. So would two or even three years, so I am not convinced by that argument.

The Minister asked for evidence that parents with care do not agree. That is the position of several of the organisations—the stakeholders, as the Minister describes them—that have written to me over the course of the Bill. He would not call that evidence in the academic sense, and perhaps I would not either. None the less, it is my duty to promote the views of people unless I profoundly disagree with them, which indeed I have done.

I know that the CSA does not collect the figures that I am asking for, but that does not mean that they do not exist. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will use his best efforts to ask the relevant departments for the figures—I suspect, as I said earlier, that the Courts Service would have them—that should prove my argument one way or the other. Again, I am sure that we will have the opportunity to refer to this over the next few years and not only because of the many orders that are to be laid under the Bill and which, in their first appearance, will be debated by affirmative instrument—a point that the Minister made right at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon.

Talking of our proceedings this afternoon, may I, on behalf of these Benches, thank the Minister very much indeed for the way in which he has handled this Bill and for his good temper, even though I have occasionally provoked him perhaps beyond the call of his duty? I think that the Bill on the whole will work, but between now and 2013-14 we shall watch like a lynx to see that it does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his kind comments and reciprocate by thanking all noble Lords on the opposition Benches, my own Benches and the Cross Benches for the constructive way in which the Bill has been debated and noble Lords' good-natured determination to ensure that it provides the best possible solutions to two hugely important issues.

I also take the opportunity to thank the many individuals and organisations that have been so important to the development and passage of the Bill. I also give a big thank-you to the Bill Team, which has supported me effectively through the Bill's passage, for its patient explanations and thoroughly professional approach to the legislation. I believe that it has also engaged constructively with those on the opposition Benches. I look forward to Royal Assent so that we can get on with implementing the important reforms that the Bill makes to the way in which child maintenance is administered. It will lift more children out of poverty, and will ensure that more children receive the maintenance due to them and that more parents fulfil their obligations.

The introduction of a new scheme to pay a lump sum to sufferers from mesothelioma, which we have not debated much, will provide financial support to anyone diagnosed with this terrible disease. For the first time, people who were not exposed through work will be able to qualify for a payment. I thank again all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.