Clause 17
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
6:30 pm
Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I speak in support of amendment No. 124, which is part of this group of amendments. To some extent I share the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but amendment No. 124 would introduce asymmetry to the arrangements. It would make provision that
“where there is a change in circumstances of the non-resident parent, the Commission shall review maintenance arrangements if the gross income of the non-resident parent has increased by greater than 25 per cent. or decreased by greater than 10 per cent. from the gross income figure fixed by the calculation currently in force”.
The asymmetry is proposed for two reasons. Although it is important to ensure that children benefit from increases in income, it is also important to provide for non-resident persons whose income falls by, for example, 24 per cent., because if there is no variation, the proportion of their income that is taken up by maintenance could, in some cases, rise to 42 per cent. The amendment is designed to concentrate more of the commission’s limited administrative resources for processing variations and changes in circumstance on those cases in which a fall in income could have a serious effect on the non-resident parent’s circumstances.
The Select Committee’s report includes a helpful table in paragraph 133 on page 37 that shows, using different figures, the proportions of employed non-resident parents who would be eligible for adjustment. A 10 per cent. variation for income falls would result in an increase of 9 to 16 per cent., but a 10 per cent. reduction for income rises would result in the proportion of cases being dealt with rising from 15 to 33 per cent. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of ensuring that income increases are passed on, but if the interest of justice and fairness is balanced with the administrative efficiency that CMEC will have to pursue as one of its objectives, our amendment would enable those cases to be addressed in which income falls could lead to serious hardship, although when significant income increases occur they would have to wait until the start of the following year to be processed.
That would be the right balance, and would allow CMEC’s resources to be devoted to cases in which hardship might occur. I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, but our asymmetric system would make the balance more right and I hope that the Committee will support our amendment.