Clause 14
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
6:00 pm

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I want to make two brief points. The first concerns transparency, which we have already debated at length, so I shall not revisit the arguments. How does the Minister intend to publish the information when the Secretary of State makes a scheme of transfer? Will it be made available by the commission or the Minister, or placed in the Library of the House? What has he in mind from a transparency point of view?

My other question is on subsection (5). That refers to the certificate confirming the transfer to be given by  the Secretary of State, whereas the explanatory notes say that the certificate will be given by the commission. I suspect that it should, indeed, be the Secretary of State, and it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify that.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I have a few questions to add. The clause looks innocuous, but one or two matters could usefully be fleshed out to help us to understand how the clause would be implemented should the Bill become law. I appreciate that the Minister’s throat is getting a bit dry after the number of speeches that he has been making, but I suspect that this will be his last, at least for today.

The clause relates to the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Secretary of State to the commission and vice versa. It would be useful if the Committee could understand how the Minister envisages that working in practice. I presume, although the Minister should clarify this, that the measure applies to buildings currently occupied by the CSA, computers currently used by them and other fixtures and fittings of their buildings. Presumably, those things would be transferred to the commission. The clause is needed because the CSA is an Executive agency and its property is currently owned by the Secretary of State. A transfer would mean that, in future, that property would belong to the commission.

If that is the case, perhaps the Minister could explain what rights or interests over transferred property the Secretary of State may seek to retain in the case of such a transfer of property to the commission. Would it be a controlling interest that would give the Secretary of State a veto over any future disposals that the commission may make? For example, if the commission decides that it wishes to sell property, will he have the right to veto that decision or could the money that might be raised from the sale of property be returned to the consolidated fund, rather than becoming additional money in CMEC’s account?

I think that I am right in saying that the CSA occupies seven regional centres throughout the United Kingdom. Is it the Minister’s intention for CMEC to have initial access to all those centres and that the commission will take decisions about its property needs in due course or might he be inclined to dispose of some of that property to raise funds for the Exchequer before the commission is set up?

Finally, is the Minister considering any disposals or alternative uses for the property? Reduction of staffing has been a constant feature of these debates, so that may be an issue in that there may be a need for less property and fewer centres. Under this Government as under previous Governments, there has been a tendency to centralise services, core centres and so on. Does he predict that that is likely to happen in the future, with relation to property, computer systems and other goods and chattels?

I shall stray slightly to talk briefly about property disposals that may take place. There have been several debates about the future use of property that is owned by the public sector in relation to meeting housing needs. If the Minister were to give directions to the  commission, would he advise it about how it might seek to dispose of property should it wish to do so? That property could be used, for example, by housing associations or other housing providers to provide affordable housing. I am sure that that would satisfy the Opposition and meet demands for brownfield sites.

Does the clause enable the Minister to give such directions to the commission to ensure that, if it is disposing of property, it will be done in a way that could meet other Government objectives? The point that I have just made would be one such relevant objective and, with that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

First, I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised about property. In general terms, the CSA has access to property via existing contracts under TUPE. All rights under those contracts will transfer to the commission. Long-term decisions about estate strategy will be a matter for the commission, which will review the situation as it evolves.

Clause 14 concerns the transfer of property rights and liabilities to the commission. The commission will need to operate from day one to enable those existing contracts and assets to be transferred from the CSA to the commission. It will benefit significantly by accessing the current contract, rather than being obliged to renegotiate afresh. First, most of the contracts are Department-wide and therefore make extensive savings through economies of scale. Secondly, many of them have been entered into on a long-term basis to achieve maximum efficiency. It is therefore in the commission’s interests that rights and liabilities are transferred under these contracts. Most contracts in which the commission has a partial or total interest will contain provisions allowing them to be novated or assigned—that is, allowing the straightforward transfer  of the contractual rights and liabilities from the Department to the commission—and ownership of both assets can then simply be transferred. For example, if the supplier had contracted with the DWP to supply stationery to the CSA centre, the contract would be amended so that it should instead supply stationery to the commission. In a few specific cases that may not be possible. For instance, if the provisions in the contract are not extensive enough to allow for transfer to the commission, the power will simply allow the Secretary of State to transfer the property rights or liabilities in question through a scheme. Similarly, if it proves necessary for the commission to make use of property owned by the Department, the scheme could be created to provide for exactly that. It is not unusual for the transfer of property rights and liabilities to be provided for in this way. The clause echoes closely the provisions of section 41 of the Food Standards Act 1999.

On liabilities, the clause is intended to allow us to transfer contractual rights and liabilities and not to transfer the Secretary of State’s liability for previous actions. For example, the Secretary of State will retain liability for cases of maladministration that occurred before the handover.

These straightforward measures simply ensure that the commission is provided with the tools and capabilities it will need to function effectively as an organisation from the first day that it is set up.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

Order. There will now be 77 days of summer reflection.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. David.]