Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 4, page 2, line 15, leave out ‘taking responsibility for’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 31, in clause 4, page 2, line 17, at end add—

‘, whether by voluntary arrangements or by use of the statutory scheme’.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

The purpose of the amendments is to expand on the clause. I do not believe that they are controversial. They would make it clear that there are two means by which child maintenance can be paid: by voluntary means or by the statutory scheme. Although we understand why the Government wish to promote the use of the voluntary scheme—if parents can come to an agreement about child maintenance that is obviously the preferable means of agreeing a way forward—there are times when that is not the case. We want the Bill to give equal weight and substance to the voluntary and the statutory schemes.

Many parents find it impossible to reach a voluntary agreement because they end up in very difficult relationships. For example, 35 per cent. of lone parents experience violence in their relationship and in such circumstances there is no way in which a voluntary scheme will work. As we discussed, a voluntary arrangement is suitable only if both parties agree to it.  

The amendment would ensure that maintenance is promoted and that people are made aware, through the information systems that will be set up, that equal weight will be given to the voluntary and to the statutory scheme. It is important to ensure that a parent in difficult circumstances who has been subject to domestic violence is fully aware of their statutory entitlement and of what CMEC can do to ensure that that entitlement is delivered.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the intention behind the amendment is for the commission to promote the importance of child maintenance in an even-handed way, as he would see it, and allow parents themselves to choose whether they prefer a voluntary or a statutory arrangement. However, I would be extremely loth to lose the important words “taking responsibility”, which are clearly enshrined in the Bill as drafted. The amendment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what clause 4 intends to do.

The clause places a duty on the commission to promote awareness among parents of the importance of taking responsibility for the maintenance of their children and securing maintenance in whatever way is most appropriate. It therefore provides the commission with the power to run campaigns to have a positive influence on both parents, emphasising the importance of agreeing, establishing and maintaining effective maintenance arrangements.

However, the clause does not apply only in relation to voluntary maintenance arrangements. The purpose of the wording that the amendment would remove is simply to recognise that without compulsion the impetus for initiating the maintenance arrangement, whether through an application to the commission or by making a voluntary agreement, will always lie with at least one of the parents rather than with the state. Any promotion or awareness-raising activity needs to reflect that. For that reason, the amendment is superfluous, as the wording of clause 4(b) does not attempt to distinguish between different types of arrangements or indicate a preference between them for the purposes of promotion.

In exercising that function, as with others it is being given, the commission must aim to realise its overall objectives—in other words, to maximise the total number of effective maintenance arrangements in place. To do that, it must encourage and support appropriate voluntary maintenance arrangements and support the making of applications to the statutory maintenance service.

The commission has no desire to push people inappropriately into unstable voluntary maintenance arrangements; indeed, it would be failing if any action led to that. I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that both this function and others, such as information and guidance, will be exercised on the basis that parents are best placed to decide what sort of arrangements suit their children’s needs. The commission’s role is to encourage them actively to consider the issue, make them aware of the choices they face and support them through the decision-making process. I hope that that reassures him and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that clarification. I admit that amendment No. 30 was based on a misunderstanding, but the Minister has explained that the words “taking responsibility for” are quite important. I understand also what he had to say about amendment No. 31. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in clause 4, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(c) promote a culture of responsible parenting in which material and emotional support are given throughout childhood.’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in clause 5, page 2, line 22, at end insert

‘, and for the purpose of supporting both parents with care and non-resident parents in providing emotional support to their children.’.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

This will, I believe, be a relatively brief debate, as I put my arguments earlier, as persuasively as I could. I fear that it will again be a case of winning the argument but losing the vote. I was not successful in persuading the Committee to back earlier amendments on the subject, and I shall probably be no more successful with this one.

The purpose of the amendments is to achieve what I set out to do in earlier ones—to enlarge the scope of the provision to allow consideration of the welfare of the child not only in financial terms. I did not expect CMEC to do it, so it was obviously necessary to try to amend clause 2, but we also need to amend clauses 4 and 5, which is what amendments Nos. 74 and 77 respectively would do.

The Minister may wheel out his earlier notes and some ink could be saved as he will probably make the same arguments as he made in the earlier debate. Of course, his officials may be so wonderful as to give him a fresh set of arguments for every amendment, even if they are essentially on the same theme. None the less, I shall not try the Committee’s patience by saying again what I said earlier. It is on the record. I said it on Tuesday and again this morning. I have put my case, and I will doubtless receive the same response.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

Yes, the hon. Gentleman will receive much the same response. If he trades his previously used words for mine, we can expedite the Committee’s proceedings.

The Government of course recognise the central role that parents play in determining their children’s outcomes and well-being. We know that the way in which parents continue to engage with each other to support their children after separation can have a major impact on the children’s well-being. A low level of conflict between parents and a good quality relationship with the resident parent can minimise the negative impacts that separation might otherwise have on a child’s health, social and educational outcomes.

For that reason, one of the functions of the new information and support service will be to provide some basic information and to signpost parents to the  appropriate services that will provide them with the expert help that they need. That is why we have made provision in clause 5(2) to enable the commission to provide information in relation to wider separation issues, when those issues arise as part of discussions about child maintenance.

We want to ensure that children’s emotional needs are effectively supported, and we obviously recognise the link between emotional and material well-being. However, we must ensure that the commission knows where its expertise lies and that it uses it appropriately. That is essential if the Government are to realise their objective in relation to child poverty. Other organisations have expertise on the emotional aspects of family breakdown, and if parents need such help we would expect the commission to support them in gaining access to these services. As I explained, there will also be cross-Government initiatives to provide support.

In summary, I suggest that the amendments would place a duty on the commission that goes well beyond its main objective and in a way that is not appropriate. As before, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

If my understanding of your helpful guidance this morning is right, Mr. Chope, the Minister can respond once more if he seeks to catch your eye. I would therefore like to prolong the debate slightly, if I may.

The first line of amendment No. 74 uses the word “culture” again. I know that the Government are keen to change the culture. The Minister talked about signposting the different organisations that would carry out some of the provisions suggested in amendments Nos. 74 and 77, but I would like to hear a little more about the Government’s cross-departmental plans to change the culture and promote the sense of parental responsibility, about which he was talking earlier. I think that the details are still sketchy.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

I am happy to contribute briefly to this extension of the debate, although it takes me beyond my Department’s remit, as it is a cross-Government programme.

The Government understand the challenges that parents face, and we recognise the need to give them as much support as possible to help them deal with those. The hon. Gentleman will know that such work is already done in family centres and children’s centres that are being established all over the country and which do extremely valuable work. They have evolved from Sure Start programmes. I do not know whether he has had the same experience in his constituency as I have had in mine, but I have heard from many lone parents that the programmes have been of incredible value, giving parents a forum in which to meet and to exchange experiences and information. I know of many parents in those circumstances who say that they thought that they were battling with those issues on their own, which is much harder to do than if they are part of a group sharing a common experience.

The centres can also signpost parents to many other forms of support that will help them. Building on that, and extending the initiatives across many Departments,  including my own and those for education and social and health services, will provide many points of access for those presenting a particular parenting need at any given time. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he will support the Government’s initiatives, as I think that we are trying to achieve the same outcome—helping parents to meet the tough challenges that their responsibility can present.

The particular role of the agency—or CMEC, as it will become—is to ensure that all our energies and focus go into tackling what is just one of a series of stresses that arise from family break-ups. If we can be certain that in reforming child maintenance we are alleviating one source of pressure and strain on parents, it will be our contribution to giving the breadth of emotional support that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. Our efforts are being complemented by those of other Departments and non-governmental organisations.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s further elaboration on that point and I shall not seek to press either of the amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.