Clause 1
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
9:10 am
James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope, and we also look forward to Mr. Taylor’s chairmanship. I endorse the Opposition spokesman’s welcoming the innovation of our evidence session; I, too, think it was helpful. I hope that it will help us to hit the ground running as we move into our clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. I welcome all members of the Committee. I am pleased to say that, for the remaining stages, I will be supported by my the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who will take forward some of the clauses of the Bill, including those relating to mesothelioma.
I am slightly surprised by the amendment, because when we received Sir David Henshaw’s report on how to reconfigure child care in the UK, we thought that there was broad acceptance of his recommendations across the House. That included his central recommendation, which is
“that there is a need for fundamental change in the way child support is organised in this country.”
The switch from an agency to a non-departmental body on a commissioning arrangement, as we propose, is at the core of that fundamental change. The amendment would prevent the commission from being established as a non-departmental public body. Instead, responsibility for child maintenance would continue to rest with an Executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. In effect, the amendment means that the CSA would continue to exist as it is now.
We believe, in agreement with Sir David Henshaw, that a much more fundamental change is required. There is after all, as the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire confirmed, a legacy of failure associated with the CSA. Sir David noted that repeated efforts had already been made to reform the agency and concluded that a fundamentally new approach and a new organisation were needed. We agree with that, which is why the Bill establishes CMEC to take on responsibility for the child maintenance system.
It is not enough for the new organisation simply to be the CSA operating under a different brand. It is essential that we mark a clean break with the failures of the past and give the commission a better platform for success. We believe that establishing the commission as a non-departmental public body is essential to achieving that. The differences are important. With an Executive agency, decisions must be taken with the interests and priorities of the Department in mind. Similarly, the most senior leaders of an Executive agency are part of the leadership team of the entire Department. They cannot always be focused on one key area of delivery, such as child maintenance. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be free from those competing priorities.
It is not the case, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, that Ministers are trying to get this matter at arm’s length in our own interests. Our interest is in getting the structure right, so that the organisation can deliver on its central objectives. It will operate at arm’s length from Ministers and the Department, and it will be led by an independent board. That board will focus solely on pursuing its statutory objectives, and it will have complete freedom to take operational decisions. For example, the commission might look to make greater use of the skills and expertise of the private or third sectors as it seeks to deliver services in the most efficient and effective manner. We believe that the focus and autonomy that goes with a non-departmental body is crucial, if we are to deliver a successful child maintenance system and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that is what we are all trying to ensure.
Lastly, as hon. Members will be aware, clause 15 will break the compulsory links between the statutory maintenance service and the benefit system. Given that, and given the personal and sensitive nature of the issues the commission will deal with, an arm’s length relationship with Ministers is more appropriate than an Executive agency. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.